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

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.

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?

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.”

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Some images from early in the afternoon:

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.