Imagine my surprise when JP’s blog received not one but two links in the last week and a half. His tributes to Sean Taylor we excellent and summed up my feelings pretty well, and he certainly deserves the props.

This was one of my favorite posts of anyone’s all year (along with Jessica’s sweet post with a young Carlton Banks getting his groove on). You honestly could substitute me for JP in that post. I thought he hit the nail right on the head with his description of the day and atmosphere. The second to last graf was, despite the hundreds of thousands of words written on the subject on or shortly after game day, JP had the only real way to accurately represent what went on.

I should be happy that my buddy has blossomed into such a good blogger. Unfortunately, I’m not. You see, I just got back from what they call “The Player Haters’ Ball.” The keynote speaker said something that hit close to home: “I want to thank God for giving everybody else so very much, and me so very little.” In fact, some bad video of the event can be found here:

Where’s my Bog link, huh? I’m good. I’m funny. Where’s my recognition? This is crap. I demand an award to make up for this miscarriage of justice. Now I know how Kanye West feels.

In all seriousness, JP’s links from the Bog were a pretty big deal. I hope everyone else realizes so, too. Congrats.

After taking this class from the man who wrote the book, it is hard to say I disagree with any of the points people say it raises. One of the points that I especially agree with Garrett on is the importance of our elected leaders to know what these technologies are. Google AdWords allows companies to use their competitors’ names as keywords and potentially outbid the owners of potentially-trademarked names, characters, etc. for higher showing on any related opportunity. To me, something about this just isn’t right. Without knowing virtually anything about it, I would venture to guess this would be some kind of potential trademark violation. It would be nice to ask my elected officials what their thoughts on it are and how they would vote on some legislation to protect trademarks in Google Adwords. I seriously doubt, however, that ANY of them would be able to answer that question.

One point I disagree with Garrett on, however, is his affinity for the CNN/YouTube debates. I agree with Garrett in principle here. He theorizes that this is a change in that it allows real people to ask real questions of the candidates, something not done beyond staged “town hall” debates. It gives people the chance to interact with their leaders the way they want to. But this theory appears to hinge on the supposition that the questions presented to the candidates are from real people, the average Joes out there who submit their simple questions in hopes of being picked. As this last round of YouTube debates clearly showed, this process still needs a lot of tweaking. Like, simply LOOKING AT THE PROFILES OF PEOPLE SUBMITTING THE QUESTIONS! While I myself have no problem with people who can not vote in the primary of those currently debating, I can see how others would be upset. Shouldn’t this be the time for Republicans to ask their potential candidates questions? How am I supposed to feel energized and excited about using this newfangled technology when already it’s not working the way it’s supposed to and I haven’t even turned on my computer yet? Now I KNOW it’s going to steal my credit card number.

While it’s not so much the fact that blatant Democrat supporters were selected to ask questions of Republicans, the concern is more over their connection to Democratic campaigns. Hmmm. A question that appears to be planted by a rival campaign. Why does that sound so familiar? Oh yeah. Because that’s how shit has been done for the last 231 fucking years! I agree these debates WILL become revolutionary, but not until they are tweaked to ensure that people really DO feel attached to them. As long as questions arise over their authenticity, people will feel less and less inclined to join in on them.

And if Graff is a guide to future, America is in more trouble than he thinks.

Well not really. But it sounded so generically menacing I had to include it. In all actuality, Garrett if probably right on, though I think it will take a bit longer than we realize to have a true netroots-elected president. I’m fine with that. Just knowing that there is a future like Garrett predicts is solace enough for me.

If only there was a time machine to take me there…

I also could not help but notice a parallel. This sounds remarkable similar to something happening right now with the candidacy of Ron Paul. Much like Dean, Paul is on the fringe of his party, by no means the mainstream candidate that wins swing states like moderate Ohio in the general election. But a guy who has enough guts to say what he thinks, not what he thinks will get him elected.

But it is HOW the campaign is being run that reminds me most of Dean for America. The group made headlines earlier this month when they set the record for single-day donations, raking in almost $4 million in online donations. For a group looking to help upend the way campaigns are run, it was fitting that the fundraiser’s organizers (who were not affiliated with the campaign itself) chose Guy Fawkes Day to blow up the old way of doing things.

One thing that Paul shares with the other candidates, which he seems to have gotten directly from Dean, is the understanding of social networking and media through the internet. His Web site lists many social media sites (including Meetup) to direct his supporters to gather and talk about his campaign.

While Paul is part of the crowd in terms of linking to social media sites from his campaign site, he is head and shoulder above the competition in the way he has embraced YouTube. In addition to having an entire video library on YouTube, Ron Paul made waves when he appeared in an interview from the dorm room of James “Emergency Cheese” Kotecki. I think it’s safe to say Ron Paul is the first and only presidential candidate to appear live in a college student’s dorm room for an interview to be seen only on YouTube.

While the Dean for America campaign was groundbreaking, you can see those lessons being taken, tweaked and, in some cases, improved upon by Ron Paul. Who knows. It might even do enough to get Joe Trippi over his hatred of Republicans and suport him.

The news is that Redskins safety Sean Taylor was shot in his home early this morning. Taylor, a fan favorite for his big hits and ball-hawking skill, was apparently awaken by a home intruder, apparently the second within a week, and was shot in the groin when he went to check it out.

After reading that, I tried opening Trippi’s book. I couldn’t read more than a paragraph at a time without my mind wandering back to the Taylor situation. So I got back online.

As a news person, I am interested to read all of the stories to see how it was being covered. As a Redskins fan, I am reading to see how one of my favorite players is doing. As a human being, I am reading because I am concerned. Fans tend to get attached to a team, feeling joy with a win or hurt with a loss. But there is always some separation there, like the team is a distant entity made of up characters. When something like this happens, one cannot help but feel as though that perception changes and we fell personally connected to the player.

Removed from the situation, all I could really do was join the Facebook group “pray for sean taylor,” where I invited several friends to join. When I joined about 45 minutes ago, there were 29 members. As of this writing, there are 87 (and growing), so I know I am not alone in feeling the way I do.

From a news angle, especially as it relates to the class, it has been interesting to see how this story is being covered. The Washington Post and Times are playing it about the same on their front pages with similar stories in both content and structure. The Miami Herald has a bit better coverage, seeing as how it is happening in their backyard.

Perhaps most interesting is the fact that blogs are leading the coverage. Jason LaCanfora was the first to report on the seriousness of th situation. The Miami Herald’s Manny Navarro has some good insight. It’s interesting to think about how different what passes for a normal reaction to news now is so drastically different than how it would have been had this happened even five years ago.

Apologies if my blog for tomorrow sucks. Now at least you’ll know why.

Today, however, there are too few opportunities to really get the story of what these soldiers do on the front lines. So much bureaucracy is involved in the dissemination of official information that virtually all of it is detached reports on broad-scale operations, as opposed to first person narratives. Perhaps it is no surprise then that Michael Yon and his bog were just awarded the 2007 Weblog award for best military blog.

Yon, an American former Special Forces soldier, is an independent journalist in Iraq, where he covers the war. He won great acclaim for his work covering the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment of the 25th Infantry Division (also called “Deuce Four”) in Mosul in 2005. It’s easy to see why. Yon delivers such amazing narratives of the action taking place. You almost feel as though it’s something out of a movie, the way he is able to detail how these great men and women go about what they just consider their jobs.

Without people such as Yon and 2007 Weblog award runner-up Army of Dude, there would be no way for civilians like myself to even begin to comprehend what the men and women in uniform do on a day-to-day basis. This insight personalizes the often detached or over-partisan looks at combat. Their efforts do a great deal in informing the public and enhancing the democratic process along the way.

My only concern comes from the way the internet is being used to unite armed forces members against the war. As a civilian simply enjoying the efforts of these men and women to tell what the soldiers what they should or should not be doing. If anything, they should be telling me what to do. But I worry about possible problems this could raise. By politicizing what is a non-political entity in the armed forces, we create a new interest group. Granted, it should be an interest to which our nation already attends. But by catering to any one group over another a fundamental problem is created in that our elected officials, elected to represent the interests of all people, begin considering just the interests of the few.

However, let’s suppose that this anti-war movement among the armed forces members stays non-political. Do we really have any right to tell those who are actually out there DOING what should or should not be done? The Atlantic article suggests that these people already have a voice in shaping policy in their vote. I am inclined to agree with that. But by no means should that take away the soldiers’ opinion. If they want to voice their discontent on the internet they have more than earned that right. And if they wish to join up with others who feel the same way they more than deserve that, too. But if they become a political entity beyond their votes, I think they, just as any political group, do more harm than good to the Democratic process.

Without knowing too much about Poppy and her political views, she seems pretty fair-minded. So I was not too surprised when she offered up a description for that particular Huffington Post piece that could easily describe too much of today’s political discussion:

“The post didn’t actually refute Horowitz, it just reported on Horowitz in a tone that made it clear that you were supposed to be horrified by Horowitz, because, well, that’s the position of the author and the readers. The video was particularly bad. It simply assumed that the person watching would find that Horowitz was ridiculous because he was articulating a different point of view. There was minimal attempt to actually refute Horowitz.”

I think this is one of the problems that needs to be explored a bit more in our culture. As we discussed in class, the internet allows people to pick and choose the news they want to hear and how they want to hear it. We have lost our “starting point” for news. All too often people frequent The Huffington Post or DailyKos or Instapundit or whatever political blog they favor because they know they are going to get the news they want with the spin they want. As a result, they often miss out on a lot of spin-free reporting and totally miss out on what the other side of the argument may be thinking. They then go on about their lives without hearing what are often rational arguments against their opinions because they don’t need to hear it to get the news. As long as there is easy access to it, people will just hear what they want to hear from voices who want to say what the readers want to hear.

While there is a myriad of causes, I’m sure the rise in accessibility to the internet and the echo chambers it has created can certainly be listed as one of the factors in today’s super-polarized political atmosphere. That is not to say, however, that bias is a completely bad thing. It is fine to have bias in one’s commentary and news story selection. In Europe the press is open about their biases. But they also get their facts right. And they do more than just report on things with disdain in the tone. If we can reach a similar balance in our political blogosphere, instead of doing as the Huffington Post did (in Poppy’s comment and when it labeled a liberal-led nationwide effort to get rid of the Electoral College as “Republican dirty tricks”) we can reach a blogosphere that enhances conversation, not muddy it.

The Bog covers the off-color side of sports in the D.C. area. Though it does tend to link a lot to actual news stories, it focuses mostly on the athletes themselves. And in this town, with characters like Gilbert Arenas, Clinton Portis and Fred Smoot, that can be a beat all unto itself. Take, for instance, this post which is about the hair of Redskins safety LaRon Landry. The first five grafs are about nothing other than LaRon’s Landry’s hair, his style, the comparisons to Wizards guard Nick Young and fellow Redskins safety Sean Taylor. The comparisons, of course, were about hair.

The other thing that really makes this blog great is that it interacts with other local blogs. Every day he posts links to other blogs, mostly other blogs about local sports. It’s rare that that someone follows through on the recommendations of “Naked Conversations” and links to their competition (though the level of competition is questionable), so it’s enjoyable to see it when it happens.

Another thing that I really like, though it’s obviously done for commercial gain, is the widget that the blog offers that allows you to show the latest D.C. Sports Bog entries on your site. Though I know they have more to gain in the deal than any individual blogger, I just think that it’s pretty cool the way they allow you to display washingtonpost.com content on your site.

In addition to writing the actual blog, Dan Steinberg hosts “Blog Show” on Comcast SportsNet. His co-host is AOL Fanhouse blogger and radio show host Jamie Mottram, whose blog is rather popular in its own right. The two of them basically discuss things they find on blogs and generally banter back and forth about sports. If blogs are characterized as real conversations, this show is as close to a blog as TV can get.

That said, my favorite blog in the world is still this one.

The beat to which I am assigned is Pakistani law enforcement. This means talking to those who actually worked the case from the Pakistani side. Initially I was uncomfortable with this beat because, like a typical American, I didn’t know they spoke English in Pakistan. After that fact was made aware to me early on the process, I felt better about my beat. All I needed was some sources. Soon those were provided to me and I was on my way.

As I exchanged e-mails with my first source, a Pakistani law enforcement official who worked on the Pearl case, I felt better and better about my part of the project. I began getting over the awkwardness that comes with working a beat you know little about. After an hour-long interview by phone with the source (which followed a tremendously awkward attempt of TRYING to dial another country, a task I had not successfully completed since I was two and my parents left me unattended by the phone) I felt really good, like I might actually get something done. I transcribed our interview and set my sights on the next one.

Then something big happened. As I’m sure everyone knows, Pakistani president Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency and suspended the constitution. I was suddenly in a dilemma. How do you handle the deadline of needing an interview by Tuesday and the fact that your source lives in a country that is going insane?

Maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t feel right calling someone under these circumstances. I mean, if George Bush decided two terms wasn’t enough, declared a state of emergency and martial law indefinitely, fired Judge Roberts and riots began to break out, I wouldn’t exactly be looking forward to talking to some stranger about the details of what I did five years ago. My focus would be on keeping my family safe and waiting the thing out. But I don’t know, maybe that’s just me.

I have been assured that, sadly, this sort of thing does not phase people who live in an unstable country and I should proceed as planned. But I can’t help but feel differently. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

All of these are the facts of the case and well-documented. It is surprising, then, to see them laid out in a bit of a different way on Wikipedia. That is, until one realizes that is the MLBPA making it so. Using WikiScanner, one can find that the players’ union, based in New York, changed the entry to take the spotlight off of Fehr (who was known as being the stumbling block in getting stricter testing) and onto the union itself. For example, one line in the entry was changed from “Fehr has also been a staunch opponent of steroid testing” to “The MLBPA was initially opposed to random steroid testing.” A few sentences later, the phrase “Fehr dropped his opposition” was changed to “the players dropped their opposition.” Though it seems like only a semantic change, it does much in shaping the perception that an outsider might have. For instance, an outsider might not have known that “The MLBPA was steadfastly opposed to strict penalties for drug offenses, initially supporting only 10, 20, and 30 game suspensions for first, second and third offenses, respectively.” And they still won’t, since MLBPA has simply erased it from the entry, running from its own public past.

Another funny bit about that part of the entry is in the way the outcome of the hearing is now portrayed. While the original entry read “the baseball union capitulated and accepted Commissioner Bud Selig’s policy,” it was changed by MLBPA to read “the baseball union agreed to a stricter policy.” Not conceding an obvious defeat is apparently something that is high on the list of priorities for a sports players’ union.

There are plenty of more examples of MLBPA shying away from its ugly side. The ugliest of all being the 1994 strike. The main issue over that work stoppage was a salary cap: the owners wanted one and the MLBPA did not. So when a Wikipedia contributor points out that “Major League Baseball is the only major league sport that does not contain a salary cap, although some speculate that that era would eventually be over with the National Hockey League gaining a hard cap from the 2004-2005 lockout,” that is simply unacceptable. The union, already unable to publicly accept defeat, simply will not stand for the possibility of having a salary cap. So much so, in fact, that they don’t even want to hear it on the Wikipedia page, striking everything after the work “cap.”

The examples are many in regards the way the MLBPA is trying to shape public opinion through their Wikipedia page, and only the most egregious have been listed here. Thankfully Wikiscanner can help silence the silencers.

I think the above video tells you everything you need to know about the online gaming world: it is full of dorks with no lives who take everything they do on the computer far too seriously. This may be only a generalization, but I’m pretty sure it’s at least a good one.

This clip has vaulted “Leeroy Jenkins” to cult icon status. He has been referenced on Jeopardy and had this episode turned into a series of live-action commercials for SpikeTV’s Video Game Awards.

According to a previously-discussed infallible source, “Leeroy Jenkins,” otherwise known as Ben Schulz, had enough geekiness from his “guild.” (I know what you’re thinking: “they are really called guilds? These people are huge geeks!”) So before a mission or campaign or attack or whatever the hell these things are qualified as, Schulz skipped the group’s audio conference and made some chicken (hence the final live of the video: “at least I got chicken.”) He then returned to ruin the dreams of the rest of his amazingly cool friends who are afraid of sunshine and girls.

Second Life does not seem much better. Admittedly I have never played it, but from what I have seen it is very similar to “The Sims”. In it, it seems that people assume a virtual self and go on living their virtual life while actually sitting on a computer neglecting their real one. You know, the one where you can get Carpal Tunnel syndrome from sitting on the computer all day and out of shape from never ACTUALLY exercising.

(NOTE: Because I am sure NBC will remove that clip sooner or later, you can go to the NBC Web site to watch the whole thing.)

The thing that I will always remember and will always discourage me from getting into these MMOGs is a simple comment from a college roommate. My freshman year I bought new computer and it came with one of the first versions of “The Sims.” Plenty of people on my floor were playing it and convinced me I should as well. After about a week I found myself getting into it. Although I can’t remember the situation exactly, I believe my roommate was looking for someone to go the gym with him. I didn’t want to go. He said something along the lines of “yeah. Why actually work out when you can pretend to on your computer?”

I think I played The Sims once more after that and never again. Since then I haven’t played any of those games. I just don’t see the point in being on of the people to drop real money in a virtual life when I could spend it on my REAL life. Why virtually meet and talk to people when I can in real life? Why live a virtual life when you can live a real one?