Buchtelite Opinion

2003-06-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

Want to play again?

Remember when...

Quinn went back to work at the copy desk but WASN'T the copy chief? She must be overqualified.

Bah!

2003-05-15T00:15:00.000-07:00

Hey, since no one's posting on here, let's play "Remember When."

Remember when...

Remember when Snowberger scabbed and went back to work during The Great Copy Editor Strike of 2003?
Remember when she told management what the whole plan was?
Remember when that made her suck a lot?
Remember when she very deliberately neglected to mention it when I saw her the next day?
Remember when I lost all respect for her resultant?

Yeah, good times.

2003-04-29T14:37:00.000-07:00

OK: Slow down and explain this to me...

Did the copy desk not edit it or did the changes not get made?

Who screwed up and what did they do?

Oh, and would this be a good time to ask if you're writing anythigng for tommorow?

2003-04-29T10:56:00.000-07:00

STRIKE!

2003-04-24T12:28:00.000-07:00

It just occurred to me that I am posting to a blog that is moderated/controlled/whatever by someone who isn't even an editor. How funny.

So, if anyone needs to get me a message, I recommend you email me if you expect me to respond.

2003-04-24T08:07:00.000-07:00

GDMF I just typed this whole damn message and then I lost it...SOB

I am furious about the hack job on my editorial. What was probably the best piece I have done thus far is a joke due to errors.

This is an embarrassment to me personally, but also to the entire paper. This is the worst thing I have ever seen in print.

All due respect, this is far worse than the "misunderstimation" misunderstanding.

I wish it had just run as a staff ed, without my name. I think it needs an apology in the next paper for misrepresenting my piece and my intelligence.

THIS SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2003-04-22T08:30:00.000-07:00

Kristen, Beth: are either of you going to have somethign for me for Thursday?

I sure could use an editorial from one of you...

2003-04-20T20:42:00.000-07:00

Hey, Brian, send Katie an invite to join this...

2003-04-15T19:18:00.000-07:00

What have you got for Thursday's paper? Anything good?

Hey everyone! Maybe Martin could write another nonword and we can all fight about it, hurt everyone's feelings and then hold a grudge. Sounds like fun.

Martin, let me know about what you've got cooking. Thanks. I want opinion done right away. Then we can all be shiny, happy people.

2003-04-12T07:55:00.000-07:00

Hey, Brian, change the name of this blog to "Jon-O = Douchebag." It will be a bubbling cauldron if dissent in a world gone mad...

2003-04-11T12:13:00.000-07:00

I think it's really great that the two of you had that conversation about "misunderestimation." It would have been even better if someone (anyone!) would have told me about it, seeing as how its fate was dependent on my decision. Hum.

2003-04-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

Alright, Kristen, I apologize. I really had no idea at all you felt this way. I always thought you enjoyed our playful, if somewhat malicious, banter. Yes, yes: I give you a hard time on production nights. I always thought that you were a person who, like Brian or I, thrives on controversy in the newsroom. That's the impression I had. I don;t think this was an unreasonable reading given that you're a generally vocal person who, as you stated below, "kept [your] mouth shut" about this matter. I guess I was wrong.

What you call "tension" and "restentment" some people call "being on your toes" and "having a goal." I was under the mistaken impression that you were a person who could appreciate a spirited disagreement and use it to fuel your creative energies. I don't know how you tried to indicate that you felt you were being treated improperly, but I missed the message. Now that I know how you feel I'll change my behavior towards you. I'll put on the kid gloves and treat you the same way I treat Ben or Stephanie...

That aside, I DID say exactly what I wrote I said. You were sitting at the Opinion desk and I was standing next to the wall by A&E. You pointed it out and, contrary to what you seem to be saying now, I DID NOT question whether you understood the joke and try to explain it to you. I'm sure you're well versed in Bushisms and anythign else that might help you formulate arguments attacking Bush. Here is exactly how the conversation went:

Kristen: "Misunderestimation?"
Martin: "Yes, it's a well known Bushism."
Kristen: "There is no way Beth is going to let this go."
Martin: "It needs to stay. If she has a problem with it like that then we can put it in quotes or italics or something."

You say that "I can hardly be blamed for not predicting that someone down the road would have issue with your word." The problem is that you DID predict that Beth would have an issue with it. I really thought she would get it on first read. Since you anticipated the problem you should have dealt with it properly. I hardly think there was a burden on me to engage in pre-emptive lobbying. You (plural) made a mistake and my story suffered from it. I was planning to use that piece as a clip and now it's ruined.

You talk about "immaturity," "CLASS," "decorum" but you REFUSE to admit your mistake. Like I said, I understand why it happened given how "hectic" the night was. It's understandable. Still, you need to admit the mistake before we can steps to keep it from happening again.

On the side notes:

The Opinion page has been excellent since Ben and I took the helm. Considering I couldn't plan in advance for Tuesday's paper I don't even blame myself for using one piece of wire. Also, since its too late in the semester to establish a real "system" I wouldn't even blame myself for doing it again. Thursday's page was solid. Don't even think about deriding my Opinion Editor skills unless you can point to a problem. You suggest I devote "time and attention to it" but the only problem I see was out of my control.

I think Bob was encouraging comments by wearing a button bearing a political message. It's not like we brought it up out of the blue. He made a statement and we had a right to reply.

Also, I never asked you to re-write the lede or conclusion, but you could have said what you did and didn't like about it so I could have some idea what direction to go...

2003-04-11T05:37:00.000-07:00

I just wrote a huge thing then accidently hit the "Back" button and lost it all. I finally know the horrors of blogger. Argggh.

2003-04-11T00:23:00.000-07:00

This is absolutely hilarious. You are all acting like a bunch of babies. I'm really not trying to offend anyone. Don't be.

Martin, we'll solve it tomorrow (I think it's today now, actually). We'll lay down some guidelines. I think that'll help. That would be good.

In other news, the paper did look fantastic for the most part. Good job everyone.

See you all at the party. This should be exciting. It's like a raffle and we're all waiting to hear our numbers called. The suspense is killing me.

2003-04-10T19:36:00.000-07:00

I decided to do this on the OP/ED blog because I thought it was a more appropriate venue than the office. I would never curse about this sort of thing in the office (although I am sure I would say something in a mean tone) and I don't really think it is out of line to do it here, on a fairly un-public forum.

In response to Beth:

1. When Kristen pointed it out to start with I said: "Well then put in quotes or itlaics or something." If that was the appropriate thing to do, then she should have done it then. I personally thought the quotes would have been a bit over the top, but certainly better than the alternative. Bottom line: I DID say somethign about it.

2. I was standing right next to you while you edited that story. You might not remember (I understand it was a hectic night -- like I said, overall, you guys and everyone else did a heck of a job) but you ASKED me to stand beside you while you edited it, and I did. I was there the whole time. Right next to you. After you were done reading it I said "I'm gonna go now, if that's all." Bottom line: I DID stay while you edited it.

So, as you can see, I already did BOTH of the things you suggested. Clearly the system broke down somewhere alogn the line...

Quotes would have been fine. It might have even drawn more attention to the somewhat subtle humor of it... My problem is that once something is out of a story it's lost forever. I can never get my beautiful, beautiful word back and it kills me...

I think it is productive to point out LOUDLY problems people see with the paper. I do this to EVERYONE because I think it's the best way to learn. I have done it to pretty much everyone at some tiem or another, (ask: Brian, Jay, Chris) and I would appreciate it if they would do it to me. This is how we get good.

Also, while for me this horrible little incident ruined the paper, I don't think it obscured the greatness for everyone else. You should all be commended. Still, this was a gross error and as long as things like this happen we will never be better than second-rate.

Kristen:

If this had been the first time something like this happened it would be one thing, but since the copy desk has delibertly and willfully destroyed my work ("kitschy" comes to mind) and others' work -- ask about the "Nirvana" incident -- this really set me off.

I really felt as though that sentence was the key to the whole story, and that word was the key to the sentence. It's as though you plucked the cherry from atop the sundae and cast it into the wastebin...

I talked with YOU about "misunderestimation" and I thought YOU could handle it from then on. I was wrong. Perhaps the fact that the night was so "hectic" is a reasonable excuse when cooler heads prevail, but I can hardly be blamed for my angry outburst... I was counting on you and you let me down.

Hey, guess what, I never said (or intended) not to still run the opinion desk. I just won't write anything.

Also, Bob was given a hard time for about 7.3 seconds. Now who's being melodramatic?

I never said that I didn't often appreciate the work of the copy desk. I like having my work polished by a "objective" source. You can point fingers at me about this all you want, but it all comes down to the fact that YOU screwed up and MY STORY suffered from it.

I ASKED for someone to help me with my lede and conclusion, both in person and on here... that's how much I appreciate your work... and NO ONE DID! You read the thing early and neglected to offer even a bit of constructive criticism. Don't give me this "we work so hard and you don't give us an once of respect" nonsense. I asked for your help and you didn't give it, instead electing to ruin another part of the piece...

The problem: You often read my stories with the deliberate intention of criticizing my word choices and often changes are made against my will. Honestly, how often does anyone at that desk crack a dictonary when they're reading other people's copy? This is a feud I didn't start. As part of your vendetta, you refuse to ever me give an inch in the name of creativity. This si the result. You wanna talk about unprofessionalism?!? I hate the fact that you over edit the good writers and allow the bad writers to slop on through. This is all a part of that wider problem.

Anyways, bottom line: It was a great paper, you all did good work, but this slip up ruined it for me. These are the sorts of things that make me really bitter and it should have been avoided.

Also, Kristen, they're called "Paragraph Breaks." Please hit the enter key twice after each paragraph.

2003-04-10T15:53:00.000-07:00

I'd like to address this. Martin, I (pink pen -- please don't jump to conclusions) was responsible for taking out "misunderestimation" because it is not a word. I've never heard Bush say it, but that doesn't mean that it's not an appropriate thing to say. Two things need to happen so that this problem with copy desk can be resolved:

1. Put sayings and things like that in QUOTES. Also, tell the copy desk that you are aware that they are not common (or real!) words so that we are aware of why you are using them.
2. As acting opinion editor, consultant, whatever, it is your responsibility to stick around until your page is done or until you ask me, "Do you need me for anything else?". I would have asked you had 1) it been in quotes, and 2) you been there to ask. It seemed to me like a mistake on your part.

Martin, your editorial was well written and I liked it. It was not ruined by taking out the non-word. I agree it would have been even better had the word stayed in, but only IN QUOTES.

I do not need permission from you to change words in your article. I DID NOT knowlingly change your voice or style. I changed your grammar.

If you'd like to discuss this further (you being ALL people involved), this page is not the place to do it. Also, I will not stand for any more copy-desk bashing. It's bullshit.

2003-04-10T07:22:00.000-07:00

OK, in a general note, that was the best paper of the semester and among the best we have ever done since I've been here... Just solid front to back.

The Opionion section was good too... except for one thing:

WHY THE FUCK WAS "MINUNDERESTIMATION" CHANGED TO "UNDERESTIMATION" ?!?!?!

Those Goddamned idiots fucked my story the fuck up. Ruined the entire fucking thing. The tone, the flow... all of it. I am insanely angry.

"Misunderestimation" is a well-known "Bushism" and it was used perfectly. It was funny, it was poingnant, it was golden. Seriously, our fucking copy editors need to read a REAL motherfucking newspaper from time to time. There is no way the New York Times or Washington Post or Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune would have taken that out. NO CHANCE! I told Kristen how I felt about that, and she should have called my attention to it if anyone other than her was stupid enough to want it gone. I can't believe some moron unceremoniously removed it.... I cannot believe how fucking stupid some people are... ARRRGH!

I may not write any more Opinion pieces this semester... After this humiliating ordeal I just don't think I can bring myself to slave over an article for three hours only to have it butchered with one stroke of the green pen.

The Copy Desk can rot in hell for this! ROT..... IN..... HELL.....

2003-04-09T09:02:00.000-07:00

Ok my Nader piece is done, but I think it could be better... I like a lot of the article, but I feel like the lede and the conclusion could both use some work. Also, the arguments all flow well to me, but if they don't work for other people I might need to splice a few more things in...
-------------------------------------------------------------
It's all Nader's fault... An opinion piece by Martin

In a widely publicized incident last week, several dozen fans left a Pearl Jam concert in Denver after the band’s lead singer, Eddie Vedder, destroyed an effigy of George W. Bush onstage in the middle of an extended anti-war commentary.

In addition to being an avid opponent of the war on Iraq, Vedder has supported a slew of other causes. His most political visible role has been as pitchman for Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Remember him? This war is all his fault.

While Vedder, and other Nader supporters, have the right to express their misgivings about the war, its about time they owned up to the fact that this war was caused by their own misunderestimation of Bush.

After the 2000 election Ralph Nader and the Green Party publicly celebrated the success of their campaign. While the Greens didn’t come close to winning, they did draw a lot attention to issues he believed to be important and generated a lot of positive press is the process.

Nader wanted to make waves and he didn’t care who’s boat he rocked. As a result of Nader’s dynamic campaign a significant number of voters in swing states drifted away from Gore. The dangling chads might have sealed the deal, but Gore was in trouble all along as a result of Nader’s attempts to whittle away his support base.
After the election, Nader and his supporters even tried to justify his interference in the election by arguing that having a Republican president would be to their benefit in the long run. Their strategy was to make disenchanted Democrats seek salvation in the Greens. From a tactical standpoint, they argued, it would be better for potential-Greens to see the horrors of the far right so they might flee further left of center.

Well, the Greens have gotten their way. President Bush has done everything they could have imagined: cut taxes for the richest few, attacked affirmative action, set up a system of funding for faith-based charities – he even threw in an unprovoked war.

And, after all this, its clear that the Green’s gambit has failed miserably. President Bush’s approval ratings are sky high and show no sign of sinking. Bush is terribly unpopular in the eyes of the rest of the world, but, since they don’t cast ballots, that doesn’t much matter.

It’s easy to imagine Al Gore chuckling quietly to himself while mending fences at his farm in Tennessee. Ostensibly, the Greens have gotten exactly what they want: Bush has been only slightly to the left of Rush Limbaugh. The problem is that the country has reacted by rallying around our president, not turning on him.
Nader, Vedder and the Green gang are found of the phrase “No Blood for Oil.” Before Nader kicks off his 2004 campaign, he might want to consider if blood for votes is a fair trade.

Like it or not, America has a two-party system. You support the lesser of two evils or you can count on getting the greater. The Greens have already cost this country a fair fight for the Presidency once, and, if they use the same tactics, we can expect more of the same.

The Democratic party’s support base is in shambles. Centrist Democrats have supported the war while more liberal Democrats have come out against it. Considering how much this issue has polarized people, it is likely to be a hot issue when the next Presidential election rolls around in 19 months. Heck, if we’re in the middle of a serious war (Syria, Iran: keep your heads up) Bush might be able to pull a Franky D. and not even bother to run a campaign. If this happens, the blood of Iraq is as much on the hands of Ralph Nader as anyone else.

The way it looks now, either a pro-war democrat like Senator Joseph Lieberman will win the primary, causing the far left to defect to the Greens, or the far left will muster a majority within the Democratic party only to see their candidate trounced by a center-supported Bush. In either event, the Democrats would do well to start prepping for 2008.

Still, there is a lot Nader could do to make the fight fair.

If Ralph Nader is not, in fact, a self-absorbed egomaniac too caught up in his own delusions of grandeur to care about the massive collateral damage he’s caused, he’ll run in the Democratic primary. With his national name recognition and very devoted, well-organized support base, Nader would have a huge leg up on gaggle of bozos currently vying for the nomination.

If Nader won the Democratic primary he’d have resources beyond his wildest imagination. If not, he would be able to make a fiery, nationally-televised speech on the floor of the convention, humbly toss his support behind the winner and slink off to the talk show circuit early.

I’m betting Nader is too selfish to do the right thing and run as a Democrat. I sure hope he proves me wrong.

2003-04-06T16:38:00.000-07:00

Hey, I've been fired, so you'll all have to run A3 on your own.

2003-03-31T05:28:00.000-08:00

Ya know, blogger doesn't work well if no one posts!!!!

2003-03-20T20:31:00.000-08:00

I think having a funny edition of the Buchtelite for April Fool's would be funny, but I also don't think it's going to happen. Our paper's leadership sucks, and so nothing gets planned. Nobody write crazy crap.

2003-03-20T05:13:00.000-08:00

Brian,
Are you getting two pages for Opinion? If so, allot me some room, OK? I'll have some time to actually devote to writing something of substance.

2003-03-19T19:37:00.000-08:00

Wait. Do you want serious stuff for the 4/1 issue, or April Fool's stuff?

2003-03-19T15:04:00.000-08:00

For the April 1 issue, I can have an article done about peace activists and why it's time for them to shut up and throw their support behind the war, whether they like it or not. Something about how the time for nonviolent resolution of international conflict is in advance of the problem, not in the middle of crisis.

2003-03-19T09:14:00.000-08:00

Well, I suppose I can write something...for April 1.
By the way, I did have something for tomorrow. I'm sure it'll go over like a brick.
By the way, Brian, there is a story in today's Beacon about a student who appeared in court yesterday regarding his E-bay scam. Thought you might like to take a look.

2003-03-18T15:58:00.000-08:00

Nice lookin' opinion page.

I think that for the Monday, April 1 edition, I'm going to try to take a page away from Janelle and run a two-page opinion section. That means I'll want some copy from everyone who can write. It will have been a week since you've written, so I'm sure you'll all have plenty to say.

2003-03-17T12:39:00.000-08:00

What the hell is wrong with the Smart family?

In a surprising twist many people have hailed as a miracle, 15-year-old Elizabeth Smart was returned home to her parents last Wednesday. The Utah girl disappeared from her home last June. Smart’s disappearance made headlines all over the country and was featured on America’s Most Wanted. As it turns out, Smart spent most of the last six months mere miles from her home, where she wore a veil to conceal her identity. Elizabeth was finally found wandering a public street in the company of Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, two itinerant prophets who preached homespun dogma on the streets of Salt Lake City.

The Smart case is turning out to be the fishiest tale since Moby Dick. While its great to see Elizabeth home safe, there are a lot of loose ends. The explanations offered by the Smarts, and accepted by the mainstream media, leave a lot to desired. It’s time we push the sugar-coated answers aside and demand some candor from the Smart Family. There are certainly a lot of inquiries to be made, but they all boil down to one big one: What the hell is wrong with the Smart family?

Ed and Lois

The Smart case was complicated immeasurably by the fact that Ed Smart brought home enough drifters, hobos and tramps to fill a Bob Dylan box set. Members of the Smart family have criticized the police for not solving the case sooner, but it doesn’t seem that there was much more law enforcement could do considering the fact that the suspect list had to be culled from nearly every transient in Salt Lake City. If this case took longer to solve than it should, its only because of the Smarts’ imprudence.

The Smarts are millionaires living in a mansion in the ritzy Salt Lake City suburb of Federal Heights. Why would Ed Smart invite an assortment of drifters and ex-cons into his family’s home to work on various home improvement projects? Here we have two possible explanations for the Smart’s behavior: either Ed Smart is one of the most naïve people in America or he’s greedy.

Some people believe that as good Christian people, the Smarts thought they were helping the homeless people they employed. This sort of naivety could only be borne out of extreme ignorance. How could anyone be unaware of the dangers involved in inviting transients into their home? Have these people never read a newspaper or watched the news on television?

Besides that, its not as though you have to bring a transient into your home to help out their cause. If the Smarts really wanted to help hobos they could have given their money to an organization who would use donated money to get these people back on their feet. These organizations do more than give a handout, they provide programs aimed at rehabilitating people. The Smarts’ money could have done a lot more good in the hands of their church or another charity. Of course that would mean Ed Smart would have to pay someone a reasonable wage to fix his roof.

Another possibility is that Ed Smart is a cheapskate who picked up homeless people to do menial labor to save a few bucks. Unless we honestly believe Smart was ignorant of the dangers involved in his little employment program, this seems like a better explanation. It seems perfectly plausible that Ed Smart knowingly mortgaged his family’s safety by desperate destitutes into his home instead of hiring a reputable contractor.

Smart’s smugness came through in his comments about clearing the names of former suspects. Ed Smart had publicly stated that he believed Richard Ricci was involved in the kidnapping. Both Ricci and his wife Angela steadfastly denied the allegations, but Ed Smart persisted in his accusations. Ricci was imprisoned on supposedly unrelated parole violations (which involved burglarizing the Smart’s home) and died in jail.

After the truth came out last week Ed Smart refused Angela Ricci’s request for an apology. Instead, he patronized her with remarks that insulted the memory of her widow.
“This was one thing that he was not responsible for," he told the Associated Press. "I hope this gives you the peace to know that he was not the one."

Angela Ricci had unwaveringly maintained that her husband was innocent. She staunchly insisted that he was laying in bed beside her the night of Elizabeth’s disappearance. It’s downright insulting that Ed Smart would think Ricci’s grieving widow would need his approval to believe her own story.

At best, Ed Smart’s actions deprived Ricci of living his last few months on earth in the comfort of his home beside his loving wife. At worst, Ed Smart is a murderer. Ricci died of an aneurism, which is a condition often caused by stress. Upon being accused of a horrendous crime and thrown behind bars its pretty safe to say Ricci was under a lot of stress. Ed Smart’s unfounded accusations may well have killed Richard Ricci.

It would seem that Angela Ricci might have a pretty good case for slander suit against Ed Smart. Ed Smart put her family through hell. A jury might be justified in an judgment which leaves the rest of the Smart family living in a teepee.

It doesn’t look like the Smarts will be hurting for cash though: the AP reported yesterday that Ed and Lois Smart are currently in the process of evaluating book and movie deals. This would be a disgusting example of the exploitation of tragedy on par with selling shuttle wreckage. Still, considering the Smarts behavior thus far, no one should be shocked that they’re willing to prostitute their daughter’s plight.

Elizabeth and Mary Katherine

The Smart family claims that Mitchell kidnapped Elizabeth from her home at knifepoint. According to the story, Elizabeth was snatched away in the middle of the night while her sister, Mary Katherine, watched. Mary Katherine didn’t alert her parents for two hours. The first, most obvious question, is why didn’t Mary Katherine, scream out when her sister was kidnapped? Even if she was too scared to scream, why did it take two hours for her to report the incident to her parents?

The Smarts are asking us to believe that Mary Katherine was aware enough to identify a suspect, but not aware enough to report the kidnapping for two hours after the alleged kidnapper had left. While its possible that, as the Smarts say, Mary Katherine was too scared to speak, there seems to be another explanation. It seems perfectly plausible that Elizabeth went willingly and told her sister not to tell what happened.

Its not hard to imagine a scenario where the Mitchell struck up a friendship with Elizabeth while he was taking a break from his work at the family’s home. Perhaps she was wooed by passionate religious beliefs or infatuated by his nomadic lifestyle. Maybe Elizabeth’s sister wasn’t scared because she had already snuck out with him before for a shorter tryst. When Elizabeth didn’t come back she got scared.

This unpleasant version of the story isn’t something people want to think about, but it provides a much more plausible explanation for the events that happened that night. Many people argue that, at the age of nine, Mary Katherine wouldn’t have the capacity to fabricate a story like this. If law enforcement is silly enough to buy into this we’re all in serious trouble. There should be no doubt that nine year old children have the capacity to lie. Also, its not like the Smart parents would put a lot of pressure on Mary Katherine to revel the truth when it would diminish sympathy for their missing daughter.

While Mary Katherine’s behavior is enough to raise some eyebrows, Elizabeth’s behavior begets more serious doubts.

When located, Elizabeth denied her identity, telling police officers that her name was Augustine. At one point she was pulled aside, out of the reach of her alleged captors, where she reportedly told a police officer, “`I know who you think I am. You guys think I'm that Elizabeth Smart girl who ran away.”

At first blush, its shocking that Elizabeth denied her identity. She was now in safe hands, yet she persisted in her lie. But read more closely: Elizabeth denied that she was the girl had “run away.” Is this what a psychologist might called a Freudian slip?

It turns out Elizabeth had numerous chances to escape. She heard her uncle calling for her while she was out in the woods. She was often out in public near people who could have rescued her. She remained in her campsite even when her alleged captors left her alone for an entire day.

The Smarts and their supporters try to explain all this away by saying that Elizabeth was brainwashed during her supposed ordeal. Their appeal to the so-called Stockholm Syndrome, best known as the defense Patricia Hearst used when she was supposedly kidnapped by the Symbianese Liberation Organization.

This brings up another question: why is it always rich little girls who get brainwashed? Plenty of children get kidnapped each year, but most try to escape. In the few cases of the so-called Stockholm Syndrome, the supposed victims seem to have a lot in common with Elizabeth. It seems possible that Elizabeth was a bored little girl wanted to go on an adventure, and that she lied about her identity because she was enjoying her experience as renegade. Even if Elizabeth was originally kidnapped, and feared for her safety if she tried to escape, its hard to explain why she behaved how she did once she was found by police. This may be the most disturbing part of the entire sage.

The story the mainstream media is telling is about an innocent little girl who was stolen from her home in the middle of the night. But given the facts, their story just doesn’t gel. Elizabeth may have been an innocent girl from an idyllic family who was victimized by a fanatical vagabond, but there seems to be a lot of evidence to the contrary.

The alternative account, about a greedy father who put his pliable daughter in a risky situation only to see her run off on an adventure with an insane transient, is much less charming, but also wholly reasonable.

Also, what is wrong with Brian? What a douchebag. Sheesh.

2003-03-17T06:22:00.000-08:00

Wait: Are copy editors allowed to be members of this little forum? If so, count me out...

2003-03-17T01:13:00.000-08:00

I think Monday's edition should be pretty good. We may not even have enough space for all the local copy. Martin's writing about the Smarts, I'm writing about Iraq, Obi's writing about Nigeria. Good times.

It would be good, I think, to put copy on here as a universal means of submitting copy. It cuts down on all the crazy line breaks, hyphens to underscores and quotation marks to commas. It also provides a means for all of us to see what's being written. I'll be a good leader and set the example.

It's all about oil--right?
By Brian Bardwell
The Buchtelite

With another war in Iraq looming maybe on the next horizon, a lot of people are inserting themselves into debates on public policy.

Newspapers just recently began giving attention to peace rallies being held across the country and world and even more recently began paying attention to rallies in support of the war.

Celebrity groups diverse enough to include Jay-Z, Kim Basinger and Casey Kasem are coming together to decry a preemptive strike against Iraq.

We’re all certainly entitled to our opinions, but it’s distressing to hear the most common and most sophomoric arguments against going to war: “It’s all about the oil,” “He’s just finishing his daddy’s work for him.” The claims—rarely backed up—are spouted at every chance by most opponents of the war effort. “No blood for oil!” signs pop up in the crowds at peace rallies.

They’re such common arguments that it’s easy for someone interested in politics only casually to buy into them. It gives an activist an arrogant sense of moral superiority to claim that such a serious act would be made over something as trivial as oil.

But the fact is that oil argument won’t hold water.

Perhaps oil in Iraq is a factor in our ravenous appetite for an invasion. With such a large reserve, it’s hard to say that it isn’t even a part of it. If America took control of that oil, the country would benefit hugely.

Nonetheless, however smart you think George W. Bush is, it takes a much purer breed of idiot to launch a war for oil. There are a lot of other factors, most notably the weapons, playing into the situation.

War opponents subscribing to the oil and following-in-your-father’s-footsteps arguments need a serious wake-up call. This isn’t the Cold War anymore. Political leaders don’t make weapons in the name of assured mutual destruction. Saddam Hussein is not Nikita Khrushchev. Saddam Hussein is a crazy man.

What more do we need this man to do? “Weapons of mass destruction” doesn’t just mean nuclear weapons. They’re big bombs and missiles, and this guy has them. U.N. inspectors aren’t supposed to go on a hide-and-seek game to find the weapons, Saddam is supposed to show them that he’s gotten rid of them.

Weapons inspectors found VX gas residue on Iraqi warheads, but the Saddam still denies that the country ever had any VX nerve gas. Weapons inspectors say that the country has what it needs to generate 200 tons of the chemical; Saddam says they’re making it up.

Iraq cannot account for 500 tons of propellant for SCUD missiles or 40 SCUD warheads. It also refuses to show that it ever destroyed 12 aerosol generators, used in helicopters to spread biological weapons.

Saddam has declared several tests it was conducting to implement weapons of biological warfare. Since then, Iraq has failed to show that it has gotten rid of supplies, warheads and materials for those tests and projects. Instead, Saddam claims that his country has no such weapons and never had them. Even as bulldozers destroyed missiles in the streets of Iraq, he maintained that he has never had weapons of mass destruction.

This a crazy man. He’s tried to assassinate our president, he pays the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and he funds terrorist training camps. Do we really believe that he won’t eventually get a bomb or a couple tons of nerve gas inside our borders?

The United States has never started a war and should be applauded. This time, though, were being taunted for a decade by a country that has been building up to attack us for just as long. A fight's going to break out eventually, and we're better off playing the first hand.

[Note: This has not yet had an ounce of editing. Leave me alone.]

2003-03-13T11:48:00.000-08:00

Hi, I joined. Fantastic. Maybe I'll write something again soon. We'll see.

2003-03-09T08:04:00.000-08:00

I just want to figure out some way of getting LeBron James suspended again before he plays Tallmadeg this Thursday. Can we think of some scandel we can break??

Martin can find his own articles to work from, thank you. Why don't you write about it Brian?

By the way, this was a super cool idea...

2003-03-09T06:36:00.000-08:00

I haven't seen a single SUV all the time I've been here. I shudder to think how poor the air quality would be if they were popular here. It's bad enough; I was told that breathing the London air each day is the equivalent of smoking 7 cigarettes each day. The size of American cars and American meals is often commented when people talk about travelling. Our country is not so big and untamed that soccer moms need to ford streams and drive over mountains to get to the grocery store. By the way Brian, I saw a Bardwell Street up in Oxford. Relatives of yours?

2003-03-08T20:14:00.000-08:00

This one's for Martin or someone else if he doesn't want it.

The director of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration told the Automotive News World Congress that he wouldn't let one of his kids into an SUV even if it was the last car on Earth. Then he told McCain and the Senate during a truck-safety hearing (also) that he wanted to make changes to SUV regulations that would likely force them to become much smaller or much more fuel-efficient.

There's been plenty of reaction to the comments and plans, but the attention paid wasn't very prominent. The hosts of Car Talk (also) on NPR applauded Runge on Saturday morning and also a bit of coverage on 60 Minutes in mid-January.

I'm sure you've got plenty to say on this.

It's also always nice to praise someone every once in a while.

2003-03-08T19:12:00.000-08:00

I'm going to try using this as a means of keeping in touch with the Opinion staff, putting out ideas, submitting stories, etc. Also as a pro-Blogger propaganda tool.