Even though the Hubble telescope isn’t new, it’s still full of awesomeness.

For those of you who have heard about Hubble this and Hubble that over the years, and thought it was a lot about nothing, here’s a YouTube video explaining what it was up to all this time.  The Hubble Ultra Deep Field really provided [...]]]> Even though the Hubble telescope isn’t new, it’s still full of awesomeness.

For those of you who have heard about Hubble this and Hubble that over the years, and thought it was a lot about nothing, here’s a YouTube video explaining what it was up to all this time.  The Hubble Ultra Deep Field really provided a perspective on how incredibly small we are in the universe.

Now, that having been said, I’ve had the Deep Field images beaten over my head repeatedly as an example of how there cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be a creator.  It’s just too big, we’re told.  People used to think that we were the center of the universe, and even that consisted of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and little pinpricks of light in the sky.  Obviously now that we know, there’s no place for a God.

On a gut-level, I’ve always felt exactly the opposite.  The absolute enormity of the universe, how we’re surrounded by things so big as to be almost entirely incomprehensible, and for those things to be dwarfed by other things, and those other things to be microscopically small compared to other really, really big things, seems far too powerfully majestic to be the result of happenstance.  But that’s just me.  To have a little blank spot in the sky reveal galaxy after galaxy, each one made up of billions of fantastically enormous stars doesn’t make me feel small and alone, it makes me feel a part of something indescribably vast.

Nothing says “Sincere expression of faith” quite like an online multi-player computer game.  So if you’re into casting the first stone, you might want to sign up for the new beta testing of The Bible Online.

No, no.  Not an actual bible, online.  But, The Bible Online.  Where players “create their nomadic tribes and be upgraded [...]]]> Nothing says “Sincere expression of faith” quite like an online multi-player computer game.  So if you’re into casting the first stone, you might want to sign up for the new beta testing of The Bible Online.

No, no.  Not an actual bible, online.  But, The Bible Online.  Where players “create their nomadic tribes and be upgraded by hunting animals and having battles with other tribes.”

There are 4 types of resources in the tribe, which are necessary to build buildings. Through upgrading the resources, you can accelerate the growth of your tribe.

Map shows the location of other tribes and resources outside the tribe. With a left-mouse click, players can select a commander and dispatch troops for a battle, to go on a scout, or for acquiring resources.

Kind of looks like Civilization, except with plagues of locusts and columns of fire and your first born dropping dead.

I do want to mention that it was a solid business decision to go with The Bible Online, as opposed to The Koran Online.  New games can probably do without calls for the developer’s head on a platter.

Uhhhh…. yeah.

A few days ago I made this post about a Guardian blogger mystified by Obama’s apparent lack of success so far.  He’s so smart, so gifted, how could it go so horribly, terribly wrong?

Basically I snickered and giggled, explaining that it’s gone wrong because Obama lucked into a position he’s simply not prepared for, [...]]]> Uhhhh…. yeah.

A few days ago I made this post about a Guardian blogger mystified by Obama’s apparent lack of success so far.  He’s so smart, so gifted, how could it go so horribly, terribly wrong?

Basically I snickered and giggled, explaining that it’s gone wrong because Obama lucked into a position he’s simply not prepared for, and on top of that he’s a major-league lefty who wants to drown the country in socialism and government excess, and Americans generally don’t want any part of that.  So sure, things are a mess.  Liberals just don’t like the way that sounds because they like socialism and would really appreciate it if everyone else liked it, too.

I got some flak about the post from some lefties, criticizing my take on things.  Let me summarize:

“Yeah, so, Obama isn’t as popular as he was at the beginning of his term.  You can’t expect that.  He’s done some very big things.  You can’t expect to have sweeping reforms of institutions in this country without some people feeling uncomfortable.  And besides, you make it sound like he’s going to be ridden out of the White House by mobs of pitchfork-wielding rednecks.  Don’t forget–he’s still more popular than Bush!”

That could be.  After years of incessant beatings by every arm of the media, yeah, Bush was pretty unpopular.  I think he was basically a good guy, but he wasn’t compassionate enough to make the left happy, or conservative enough to make the right happy, and the two wars went a long way to make everyone in between pretty upset at him, too.  As a conservative, I’m happy he took a tough, unyielding stance on terror aimed at us, even though that cost him dearly in the polls, but there’s very little else I can praise him about.  He was no fiscal hawk, that’s for sure.  So basically his terms as president he muddled about and did just enough to make everyone at least a little unhappy with him.

But I think we’re about to view a very interesting phenomenon.  We’re about to watch the speedy resurgence of a former president’s popularity, which would normally take as long as a few decades, occur in a few short years.

The first part is linked to how miserable Obama is doing.  And he’s doing pretty bad.

Michael Barone makes an interesting point, that if you remove Obama’s 91% approval among blacks, his approval is looking a lot like Bush’s.

Obama’s job rating among black voters is 91% positive. A lttle back of the envelope arithmetic suggests that Obama’s job rating among the 88% or 89% of non-black respondents is about 39% positive and 54% negative.

All of which is to say that the state of opinion in the real political battlegrounds of 2010 is considerably more negative toward Barack Obama than top-line poll numbers suggest.

Why is that important?  A lot of the seats up for grabs in the coming election do not have substantial black populations.  And besides, the black vote is largely a given at this point.  It’s not going anywhere.  There’s no policy changes or legislative battles or much of anything that will move that needle at all.  Aside from giving his next press conference in a Klan hood, Obama has that sewn up.  If a group votes at a 90% clip, always without question, how significant are they going to be to the coming political debate?  Saying that Obama is more popular than Bush while factoring in a chunk of voters that will never change their mind, ever, may be a little misleading.  Among people that will change their mind, and do… Obama is right in Bush territory.

And then there’s this.

From Public Policy Polling, certainly not a right-leaning organization.

We’ll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there’s one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they’d rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

That’s… interesting.

If he’s the worst, vilest, most evilest president ever ever…

I’ve got to think that Ohio isn’t on some isolated island out there.  Maybe compared to the coasts, but as far as Midwestern states go?  I’ll bet we’ll find a lot of similarities.

This second look at Bush is mostly due to a good view at what the alternative has been.  We were told Bush was some backwards hillbilly who was hated by other nations.  Guess what?  Obama ain’t helping.  The economy’s tanking because of Bush?  Oh, well a little time and distance, and maybe that’s got a lot more to do with Democrat policies, and government interference, than we thought.  The wars are unpopular and Obama will take care of that?  Hmmm… still kinda there.  Bush spending too much?  Yeah, how’s that working?

There are a lot of things that make Bush seem not nearly as monstrous as the media made him out to be in the last few years of his presidency, and a lot more things that make it clear that Obama isn’t the Chosen One he had been portrayed to be.

So for those who shot me messages to immediately set me straight about how much more popular Obama is… again, you keep thinking that.  Unless he makes a rapid Clinton-like about-face, I’ve got a feeling you’re going to have plenty more disappointment headed in your direction.  Buckle up.

Normally we here at the Gulch don’t hop on news stories just as they’re breaking.  There’s no point.  Things need to percolate a little before they’re worth diving into.

But this one caught my eye, for obvious reasons.

An offshore oil rig has exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, west of the site of the April blast that caused [...]]]>

Normally we here at the Gulch don’t hop on news stories just as they’re breaking.  There’s no point.  Things need to percolate a little before they’re worth diving into.

But this one caught my eye, for obvious reasons.

An offshore oil rig has exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, west of the site of the April blast that caused the massive oil spill.

When the Deepwater Horizon exploded, there were some who latched onto that story as a convenient method to vent their own conspiracy theories.  Muslim terrorism?  Eco-terrorism?  Bush/Cheney/Halliburton inside job? But at the Gulch, we’re level-headed and need more than idle speculation to run with.

This new story, however….

Let’s just say we’re keeping an eye on it.  Oil rig disasters aren’t all that common.  There’s something interesting, perhaps, about this sudden increase in frequency.

Fingers crossed to say there’s nothing to it.

In general, if your coworkers are lazy schlubs, and exposing their laziness also exposes your boss’ laziness, you’re probably better off just keeping your yap shut.  Because when the fit hits the shan, you’re going to be blamed for the whole thing.

That’s what Washington Post sports columnist Mike Wise found out.  He’s been hit with the ban-bat [...]]]>

In general, if your coworkers are lazy schlubs, and exposing their laziness also exposes your boss’ laziness, you’re probably better off just keeping your yap shut.  Because when the fit hits the shan, you’re going to be blamed for the whole thing.

That’s what Washington Post sports columnist Mike Wise found out.  He’s been hit with the ban-bat for a month to think over how naughty he’s been.

And he’s been very, very naughty.

Wise claimed Monday that he wanted to prove a point about how reporters will run stories in today’s fast-moving news environment without  independently verifying the information. So Wise tweeted that Pittsburgh Steelers star Ben Roethlisberger, who has been accused of sexually assaulting a Georgia college student, would get a five-game suspension. Of course, since Wise is a respected sportswriter, other news outlets went with the apparent scoop and cited his reporting.

The suspension, he later admitted, was a completely bogus story.  And there are “news outlets” which, after falling for the fabricated tweet, are now outrageously outraged.

“Roethlisberger will get five games, I’m told,” Wise tweeted in a short missive that would have been major news in the NFL, if it were true.

About an hour later, Wise revealed that it wasn’t true. He tweeted sarcastically that his source was “a casino employee in Lake Tahoe” (a tasteless joke about the fact that a casino employee in Lake Tahoe has accused Roethlisberger of raping her), and he said on his radio show (which was airing at the same time that he was tweeting) that he made the whole thing up.

His reason, Wise said, was to prove that “anybody will print anything.”

If Wise believes his own tweets qualify as “anything,” then maybe he had a point about that. It’s true that several media outlets, including the Miami Herald, Baltimore Sun, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Pro Football Talk (where I also write) passed along Wise’s tweet. Those outlets attributed the information about Roethlisberger to Wise, while also noting that the NFL had made no formal announcement of Roethlisberger’s suspension, and no one else had confirmed the report.

We made this point just a couple of weeks ago on this blog, referring to a tweet by a University of Madison football player which turned out to be a hoax, but was picked up by Madison news stations and blew up into a major sports headline.  In that case, a simple call to the university could have squashed it, but no one involved seemed to want to bother with that.

The same happened here.  Mike Wise tweets and a slew of significant media hound dogs are there to lap it up.  And while he’s apologizing now, I’m sure because he got punk-slapped by his bosses, he was completely right.  ”Journalism” as a whole is lazy and will print anything.

Those places that fell for this bogus tweet are now angry and claiming that, well, “It’s a Mike Wise tweet.  That is a source!”

But he still seems to think he made some important point about “nobody checking facts or sourcing.”

He’s wrong about that: Everyone who passed along his Tweet sourced it properly, by attributing it to Mike Wise of the Washington Post. We just didn’t know how unreliable a source that was.

Yeah, I guess you can print anything you hear and claim it’s a source.  Heck, you can write a book on the fall of Rome and use Wikipedia as your only source, if you want.  My uncle said some cool things about World War Two last week.  Let’s source him.

It was sourced properly, but the point is it was a bad source… intentionally this time.  Any of the media outlets that noted that the NFL and the team and everything else under the Sun couldn’t confirm the story, but still ran it, well… you go ahead and make your own call on how much you should believe the next article you read of theirs.  Sure, you can say that Mike Wise should be a credible source, but plenty of bad stories are written where what should have been a credible source turns out not to be.  Look at all of the global warming nonsense striking the gong of doom citing all kinds of “credible sources.”  People have biases and bad information and bad blood and sometimes turn out not to be good sources.

Hows about we check up on these things now, eh? Make a call when you hear something, maybe?  Double check on what someone tells you.  Y’know, basic reporting duties.

And seriously, when did Twitter become a source, for goodness sake?

Really, if you’re a reporter and you consider Twitter as a source, you need to go flip burgers for a living or clean up golf balls from the driving range or something where your lack of enthusiasm and skill won’t hamper you quite as much.

Prior to the election of the Chosen One, there were a number of “conservatives” (see what I did there?) who were all kinds of enthusiastic about Obama.  You know, folks like Christopher Buckley and David Brooks who for some reason warmed to the label of conservative (or moderate-conservative?) but didn’t quite get that conservatism is [...]]]> Prior to the election of the Chosen One, there were a number of “conservatives” (see what I did there?) who were all kinds of enthusiastic about Obama.  You know, folks like Christopher Buckley and David Brooks who for some reason warmed to the label of conservative (or moderate-conservative?) but didn’t quite get that conservatism is about less government and more liberty.
Folks who saw Obama as a knight in shining armor come to save us from the hicks like Bush and Palin.

It’s kind of rough sailing for these guys, now.  They’ve slowly, or not so slowly, come to realize what the right knew before the election, and the middle knew somewhere after the election, and even some members of the left have been understanding recently…. that Obama ain’t all that.

Here’s another one writing in the Christian Science Monitor:  ”Confessions of a conservative who voted for Obama.”

Part of me feels sorry for him because he’s beginning to realize how he had the wool pulled over his eyes, but there’s also another part of me that wants to help him out just a little more.  You see, he’s under this curious impression that he’s a conservative.  We need to explain some things to him.

A successful Connecticut entrepreneur, a Wall Street executive, and a retired senior bank officer pummeled me with questions about my support of President Obama.

I get myself into these situations because my conversion from moderate, middle-aged, Southern conservative to Obama campaign foot soldier got splashed all over the Web after an opinion piece I wrote for the Monitor went viral and briefly turned me into a liberal darling. The questions I was getting that night were not the Sarah Palin-like “So how’s that hopey, changey thing workin’ out for ya?” kind of question. These were insightful questions from intelligent friends interested in a constructive dialogue about politics.

To his credit, he throws the word moderate in there.  He would have been better off leaving out the “conservative” part, too, but there’s no going back now.  That wouldn’t be as sexy.  There’s something intriguing about a conservative being turned from the dark side and rejecting his more base impulses to follow the way of good and light.  Like Darth Vader pitching the Emperor down the shaft.

But the article starts off right away demonstrating that this fellow isn’t a conservative at all.  Some part of him desperately needs to take a shot at Palin, for no particular reason, even though the article has absolutely nothing at all to do with her.

So am I saying that you need to be in love with Palin to be a conservative?  Not at all.  There are plenty of reasons not to like Palin, as there are for all politicians, and I’m not entirely sure I’m sold on her, either.  But the problem comes in why she’s not appealing to someone.

“The questions I was getting that night were not the Sarah Palin-like ‘So how’s that hopey, changey thing workin’ out for ya?’ kind of question.”

Palin is, of course, a dunce, as all liberals believe.  She’s a rube, a hick.  She talks like one, too, you know.  So being all elite and stuff, we’ve got to point out that she talks like a hillbilly.  Please also notice that the quality of questions he’s fielding far surpass what she’s able to conjure up in her backwoods-stunted brain.  These are real questions, not like what Palin would toss at me.  No need to mention that it’s a legitimate question.  The question is no different than, “Are you better off now than four years ago?” but the wording is designed to demonstrate how stupid she is.

Let me clue you in here.  Being an elitist probably means you’re not a conservative.  Conservatives believe in regular people.  Regular people doing regular things make the country run.  We don’t need government regulation to protect us from ourselves.  We don’t need social safety nets.  We don’t need nanny-state protections.  Palin being a regular person, maybe talking like a regular person, doesn’t prevent her from being able to discuss issues that concern her.  Just like, oh, I don’t know, your neighbor being a plumber doesn’t disqualify him from the political discussion, either.  Doesn’t make their contributions any less important, any less relevant, than the contributions of your entrepreneur, banking and Wall Street friends.  But clearly because she’s a rube and talks funny we won’t listen to her.  All kinds of conservative there.

In 2008, independents backed Obama because they believed he would end the war in Iraq, focus on growing the economy, improve the standing of the United States in the world, and raise the quality of debate in Washington in order to solve problems facing the country.

“Improve the standing of the United States in the world” and “raise the quality of debate in Washington” are pretty good signs you’re not a conservative, too.  Why was our standing in the world so poor?  Other nations didn’t like us.  Under Bush, we didn’t fit into the mushy Euro-wuss mentality that saw us as rampaging cowboys instead of bootlickers of tyrannical regimes.  We should talk to the terror nations.  Reeeeeeeeson with them.  Flexing muscles?  Bad.  Sitting down and working out our differences over latte and brie?  Good.

Problem?  The Iranians ain’t drinking your latte, chief.

And how was Obama going to “raise the level of debate in Washington?”  Why, because he’s so smart, that’s why.  Again, Bush was just a redneck cowboy who could clear brush off a ranch but wasn’t properly suited to the discussion of important issues facing us today.  Not like Obama.  He’s a something-something professor and wise beyond his years.  *Swoon*

Our allies now see us through the lens of partnership and thoughtfulness, a radical shift from the perceived unilateralism of the Bush administration. Continued engagement with the world community can only bring long-term benefits to US security interests abroad and economic growth at home.

Hmmmmm…….  Even David Frum isn’t buying that.

But in international affairs, the big decisions are the president’s own. It was Obama who decided to surge 30,000 fewer troops into Afghanistan than his commanding general requested, while telling the Taliban the president’s deadline for U.S. withdrawal.

It was Obama who decided to pooh-pooh Iran’s brutal crackdown on democracy protesters last summer in hope of enticing the Iranian government into talks with the United States.

It was Obama who cancelled the European missile-defence program in hopes of winning Russian help on Iran sanctions.

It was Obama who cold-shouldered Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and he who is quietly acceding as the Palestinian Authority moves toward a unilateral declaration of statehood.

It was Obama who tilted against the Honduran Supreme Court and in favour of Honduras’ Chavezista president.
These are the decisions that are going awry — and visibly awry.

And if you’re to the left of David Frum, that’s yet another good indication you’re not a conservative.

Wait, wait.  I feel the need to help some more.

Despite his best efforts, the president has failed to turn party politics into bipartisan governance.

And how exactly was Obama gong to do this?  By sheer force of his personality, I imagine.  We’ve had angry, partisan governance since the establishment of our country.  The founding fathers fought tooth-and-nail.  So has every President and Congress since.  But Obama was going to wander in amid applause and rays of light from heaven to bring everyone together.

Democrats are bracing for a bruising battle in November. If Republicans win big, Act II could be rocky.

As anyone who has sat through a Shakespeare play knows, the second act can be long and painful, and the hero often faces setbacks. But if the hero can get back to what got him elected, I and other centrists will stick by him – and Democrats will get a chance to star in Part II of the Obama presidency.

The hero often faces setbacks.  Let’s get that hero back to what got him elected, so the Democrat will get a chance to star!  *Swoon again*

If at this point, you still see Obama as a hero, and you’re waiting impatiently for the Democrats to “star” in Act II, I’m taking another wild swing here and going with “You’re not a conservative.”  I guess he’s hoping the Democrats take control over the internet, Ford, Microsoft and the temperature in your shower.  Maybe Congress confiscating your check and giving you a weekly stipend would would be what they need to “star.”  I dunno.

The title “Confessions of moderate to liberal former Republican who voted for Obama” doesn’t have the same pizazz.  But I do feel kind of bad for the author, mostly because he seems a little uncertain about his views and because he’s still expecting the “hopey, changey thing” to come together and work out somewhere soon.

And oh, by the way… how’s that working out for ya?

Well, not me.

It’s a documentary opening October 15th, and it focuses on Washington spending us into a barren hell.

I have no idea if it’s any good or not, but I’d say that simply because of the subject matter, if you’re a conservative you need to go see this.  Drop down your ten bucks, or better [...]]]> Well, not me.

It’s a documentary opening October 15th, and it focuses on Washington spending us into a barren hell.

I have no idea if it’s any good or not, but I’d say that simply because of the subject matter, if you’re a conservative you need to go see this.  Drop down your ten bucks, or better yet, take a date and throw down twenty.  Your $20 bill is a message-sender.  The more people who go to see this, the more of a message you send to Washington, to the media, and to other citizens, that we’re tired of working hard to support the leeches and looters in this country.  This nation was built on freedom, and part of that freedom is to work hard, earn your money, and, gee whiz… keep it .

I’m going to go see it when it comes out.  You should, too.

Here’s an incredible image of hurricane Earl from over the shoulder of some watchful satellite.  Russian, it appears.

The picture is a link to twitpic, and if you hover your mouse over the picture, you’ll get an option to see the image at full size.

It’ll blow your skull apart.

Michael Tomasky at the Guardian blogs about “The great Obama-Axelrod-etc. mystery,” and how truly, unbearably impossible it is that this “plenty smart man” who ran “such a brilliant campaign” could be floundering his way toward losing the House, possibly the Senate, and whatever glorious New Age they thought they were leading us toward.

It really is [...]]]>

Michael Tomasky at the Guardian blogs about “The great Obama-Axelrod-etc. mystery,” and how truly, unbearably impossible it is that this “plenty smart man” who ran “such a brilliant campaign” could be floundering his way toward losing the House, possibly the Senate, and whatever glorious New Age they thought they were leading us toward.

It really is a mystery. In 2008, they seemed two steps ahead of everybody else. In 2010, they seem two steps behind.

How could this happen?  He sets down a list of six possible explanations, some of which he finds plausible and others he simply dismisses.  They’re all pretty much head-smackingly awesome.  It’s a mystery, I tells ya’.

1. Campaigns are easier than governing. Not to be discounted. Campaigns are hard, but governing is harder. You’re actually responsible for stuff, and that stuff sticks to you more. Takes a while to figure that out.

Yup.  Not to be discounted.  Not at all.  Promising people a bunch of stuff, blaming Booooooosh and the rich and those tax cuts and reading off of electronic cue cards… yeah, maybe that isn’t as tough as running the most powerful nation in the world.  You are actually responsible for stuff.  You mean, there’s not just a sparkly trophy at the end?  Shock and surprise.

2. They were overwhelmed by events. They didn’t understand quite how bad things were going to be. Actual conditions, I mean: the economy, Afghanistan, unexpected things like the oil spill.

I understand.  Obama faced terrible, terrible things the likes of which no other president in the history of our nation could possibly imagine.  I mean, that bastard Bush only had to worry about a terrorist attack bringing down the World Trade Center in his first year.  Small potatoes.  And Katrina, you know, only the sixth strongest Atlantic hurricane ever, the costliest in US history at over $90 billion adjusted to 2010 dollars, and one of the deadliest.  What’s that, huh?  Obama had birds covered in oil!  My god, the inhumanity!  If only times were easier, and he had a world war to deal with, or Soviets sneaking missiles off our coasts, or a Civil War, or something simple like that his giant brain could deal with.  The events during this first term have simply spiraled out of control, and forced him to cancel at least one of the ten vacations he had planned.  Is there no God?

3. They didn’t expect the partisan onslaught. I didn’t either, so I have a basic sympathy with this error, but I also think it should have been evident long ago that error it was, and adjustments made accordingly.

Those Rethuglicans, again!  They don’t control the Presidency, the Senate, or the House, but they sure managed to screw everything up again, didn’t they?  It’s all that partisanship!  When they lose an election, why can’t they just shake hands and give in, like the Dems did for Reagan, and Bush I and II?  And it was an onslaught!  No joke!  They were coming from every angle.  Like that Fox News beating up on the President all the time!  CBS and NBC and ABC and MSNBC and CNN and the NYT and the Washington Post and Newsweek and Time and USA Today and the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos just couldn’t keep up with all that venomous mudslinging Fox News was doing.  I see now why the President would just want to curl up and cry.  At Martha’s Vineyard.  With a nice Bordeaux.  For another week.

5. It’s Obama himself. Ah, the conservatives will say…ding ding ding ding ding. But I really don’t think so. He’s a plenty smart man. His instincts haven’t often seemed great, but hey, they did get him this far, which is far.

He’s just so smart.  It couldn’t have anything to do with, say… him.  Or where he wants to take the country.  Nope.  It’s just everything conspiring against him.  Everything going wrong at once because he’s just too smart and awesome and he only wants what’s good for everyone and the labor unions and his cronies in Congress.  Oh god.  Why can’t we just subjugate these angry, clinging, unwashed masses and have them love us because we’re their betters?  Where’s that Bordeaux?

Ugh.

I skipped a few, but you get the idea.  Obama is too smart.  He’s got all the right big-government ideas.  Why is this going oh, so wrong?

It amazes me that there are still people out there who have no ideas at all why Obama could be unpopular, or why the Democrat agenda may be bringing their party down in flames in a few short months.  But that’s cool.

Keep thinking it’s that “partisan onslaught,” guys.

It started this past Friday with a tiny little Tweet… and ended up as a prime example of why many of us have decided, consciously or not, to simply avoid the news.

University of Wisconsin sophomore quarterback Curt Phillips had no idea that he’d create such a stir when he decided to play a prank on [...]]]>

It started this past Friday with a tiny little Tweet… and ended up as a prime example of why many of us have decided, consciously or not, to simply avoid the news.

University of Wisconsin sophomore quarterback Curt Phillips had no idea that he’d create such a stir when he decided to play a prank on junior defensive end J.J. Watt on Friday.

When Watt, who had been picking on Phillips throughout the day, left his locker to take a post-practice shower, Phillips grabbed his teammate’s phone and decided to get back at Watt. He got intoWatt’s Twitter account and said that Watt was officially a defensive tackle.

All right.  Easy enough so far.  Preseason camp for a major college football program.  Some hijinks among the players.

Defensive end J. J. Watt is the Badgers’ star defensive end.  He’s a pass-rushing specialist, and may be a major player not only this year for the team, but shortly in the NFL draft, as well.  Moving him to defensive tackle would be a significant change in his playstyle if this were to happen on an every-down basis.

The Tweet was simple enough, though.

“Is officially a D tackle now.”

Hard to see how a few short words could cause an uproar.

Watt got back to his phone, discovered he had 25 text messages and figured something big had happened.

“My mom texted me and said, ‘I wish you’d tell your dad and me before you tell the rest of the world,’ ” Watt said. “Obviously, when you make your mom upset, it’s not too good. But looking back on it, it was pretty hilarious.”

And now we get to what caused the problem:

The news created a buzz among Watt’s many followers and was reported by a Madison television station.

Ah, yes.  You caught that part.  Reported by a Madison television station.

Apparently this NEWS station caught the mischievous Tweetage, and the REPORTERS went into action.

Did the reporters go into action by calling the player?  Or maybe the coach?  Maybe one of the assistants?  Or a representative of the athletic department?

You guessed it.  No on all counts.  They went into action by immediately reporting the “news”, and sending Badger fans, as well as members of the players’ families, into a whirlwind.

What’s the point of watching the news, or reading it for that matter, when this is the kind of rigorous fact-checking you’re going to be subjected to?  And this wouldn’t have required much more than the most minimal investigation to determine it was wrong.  One call to the coach, or the player, would have returned a, “What?” and squashed this story like a bug.

Now use your imagination, and try to picture the kind of thorough reporting that is probably done on much more difficult subjects.  Subjects that might actually require some persistence, some digging, some experience.  Global warming?  Stimulus?  Good grief, let’s not even think about the intricacies of the Blagojevich trial.  If your average reporters can’t be bothered to pick up the phone and make one call, can you expect them to dig into the most complicated stories on your behalf?  Spending weeks or months digging and working contacts and sifting through half-truths and outright lies and other various roadblocks?

Instead of real reporting, we get fluff on frisbee-catching dogs and who’s dating who’s ex and what the cast of Seinfeld is doing now.  And when you can’t deal with that nonsense any more, and realize there’s no real point in watching the so-called hard news, you just move on.  Throw in some obvious bias, and pretty soon formerly powerful media empires are being sold for pennies on the dollar.

As for the pic?  Yeah, I don’t know.  It had something to do with the Badgers.