Cheney

Well, I wrote an article on the VP speaking at BYU and boy oh boy did it get noticed. You see, some people don't care for the VP, and they are threatening not to come to their own graduation if he speaks.

In my article I wrote that it was getting "blue blood boiling". Some people took this to mean that it was angering democrats. Seriously, unless the phrase is juxtaposed with red blood, this doesn't even begin to make sense. It's clearly talking about BYU's colors blue and white.

Also, I took quite a bit of flack for not being fair in my coverage. This, as it would seem, came from the strong supporters of the President and the VP.

Here's the thing: does it really need to be said that if BYU invited him, then there are people at BYU who support it? If the news story is that people are protesting Cheney, should I search out people who not only are silently supporting him? Is it really necessary to say that even though a few people are really upset, not everyone disapproves of the invitation? I just don't see why that needs to be said. It isn't what the story is about.

Let's do a hypothetical:

Lets say I write that a polygamist leader is indicted for statutory rape. (Again, hypothetical.) Would it be unbalanced for me to not put in the article, "the leaders followers still support him"?

I don't think so, because, well, the story isn't about who supports him. The story is about him being indicted. Similarly in the Cheney article, the story isn't about the people who support him, it's about the people who invited him.

Am I therefore unbalanced and biased? Maybe so, but I don't think so.

And let me make this clear: I have no agenda political or otherwise on this matter. I personally, and I stress personal opinion here, think the office of the Vice President deserves respect. I personally think that there are arguments that bear cogency denigrating the VP. I also think there are arguments that are reasonably cogent supporting the man and the administration which he represents.

So what does it boil down to? Just this: he speaks, he doesn't speak, what will be, will be. I, however, only seek to let people know that there is an upset a'brewing; one that may bear fruits, of good or bad, but fruits none the less.


I, as a matter of torpor, perhapses, or as a matter of distance, just don't feel like any one set of arguments is really hitting the mark just yet, at least to satisfy my standards for forming a personal opinion on the matter.

So to all those who wrote in and called me a "low-life liberal" with a "partisan political agenda" here's the tough break: while you have gone ahead and formed your opinion, I, after speaking with dozens of people on the subject, still think that it would require more thought and information to make wise conclusions.

And when I do, perhaps I'll tell you all. Then again, maybe I won't. But I guarantee, it won't be what anyone expects that I'll say.

I'm far to creative for that.