Don Zeigler dot Info

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph has devoted much editorial space to the matter of the EPA holding up for review mining permits in West Virginia. However, one fairly recent news item concerning mining permits was apparently overlooked by the newspaper:

In a January 5, 2010 letter to the Corps of Engineers Huntington office, the EPA declared that it would not object to issuance of a permit for Hobet Mining’s Surface Mine No. 45 in West Virginia, one of the projects had subjected to enhanced review. The review process produced a negotiated agreement in which Hobet agreed to cut the impacts to headwater streams in half (from burying six linear miles to only three).

A news article from 2009 was also seemingly missed by the Telegraph:

On August 10 of that year, the EPA gave the nod for the federal Army Corps of Engineers to issue a Clean Water Act permit for CONSOL Energy Inc.'s Peg Fork Surface Mine near Chattaroy in Mingo County.

So much for the myth the Obama Administration is anti-coal… and these are only two stories, found in about 60 seconds using Google.

Isn't it far better to submit these permits to careful scrutiny, then take action after working diligently with the coal companies to resolve environmental issues, rather than continue to let them indiscriminately befoul our state's drinking water, decimate hundreds of miles of streams, and turn our natural beauty into barren moonscapes?

I emailed this to the paper but doubt it will see publication, for the simple fact that it doesn't fit into the editorial staff's blatantly right-wing agenda. In its zeal to condemn anything and everything Obama, the Telegraph is doing its readers a disservice by missing, whether by accident or intentionally, coal-related news stories that prove the administration is willing to reach compromises with our state's coal operations.

As I recall from my nearly nine years at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, the main job of a newspaper is to present news and opinion in a balanced manner. One would not know that from reading this paper, at least not the online edition, which is supposedly a mirror of the print version.

Nearly every editorial published in the online edition shows a marked right-wing bias. From my time there, I know the paper used to run opinion columns that offered a more liberal view, to balance out columns that were of a more conservative bent. I wrote one for about a year, and the paper would run syndicated columns from other writers who, like me, leaned somewhat to the left.

This was fair and balanced delivery of the opinions of the day, from writers who came from all parts of the political spectrum. Sadly, this seems to be a thing of the past at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph.

I first thought this might be an issue with online reprint rights to the syndicated columns. Even taking the financial aspect of this into consideration, it is the job of the paper to provide a forum for political discussion that encompasses everyone. As it stands, when you read the online edition, you get one world view shoved into your face – the conservative one.

The late Tom Colley, a conservative, and executive editor of the paper, believed in providing such fair and balanced coverage. On the basis of my frequent contributions to the Letters to the Editor section, he, along with then-publisher Gary Adkisson,  encouraged me to write a weekly column, even though 95% of the time he disagreed with what I wrote.

Taking the syndication issues out of the equation, there are surely more than a few qualified writers in the area, of the liberal persuasion, who would be able to contribute their thoughts on a regular basis. The conservative writers, obviously, have every right to speak their mind. Is this option being offered to prospective contributors who "lean to the left?"

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph does its readers a huge disservice by not offering the other side of the story when it comes to the political issues of the day. It's their job to do so, and they are failing miserably.

In the January 12 edition of the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, the opinion piece on page A-4  claims Barack Obama has a nonchalant attitude towards terrorism. The writer lambasted the president for not making a statement about the attempted Christmas Day bombing until three days after the incident.

How long did it take George Bush (whom the opinion writer has professed in the past to admire) to make a public statement on shoe bomber Richard Reid? Six days. Did the writer complain back then? For some reason I believe probably not.

He intimates Obama doesn't take terrorism seriously without offering any real evidence of this other than to regurgitate the standard right-wing talking points, including the accusation the president won't even use the words "terrorist" or "terrorist attack". This is an outright lie.

During Obama's radio address on the attempted Christmas Day bombing, he used the word "terrorist" or a variation at least six times. It seems strange to me that Obama's detractors would make such a baseless and actually silly claim, so easily refuted, about such a serious matter. The writer should have at least troubled himself to look at the actual transcript of the speech instead of just recycling what other right-wing pundits have been saying. I guess it's easier to write a column if you don't bother to fact-check while writing it.

He wrote, " He didn’t grasp the seriousness of the situation, and he sped through a weak public statement that left too much unsaid so he could get back out on the golf course." Now, whether the president's statement was weak or strong is a matter of opinion. But the writer's implication that Obama was only interested in resuming his vacation is amusing, since he staunchly supported George W. Bush, who was infamous for taking regular (and lengthy) vacations even very early on in his presidency Oh, the hypocrisy.

He even accuses the president of giving the war on terror "back seat" status so he can focus on his "radical" domestic agenda. Again, we have an accusation being made with absolutely nothing to back it up. This seems to be his writing style – sling lots of mud and hope something sticks – reminiscent of other right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

I will defend to the death this opinion writer's right to criticize whomever he wants to criticize. Unfortunately, when a writer is blinded by his or her own bias, it's all too easy to put words to paper without doing a thorough check of the actual facts of the topic at hand. This columnist is a somewhat competent writer, and it's a shame he chooses to throw around half-truths and misstatements of fact in his zeal to attack anything and everything Obama has done (or hasn't done).

If you've never heard of Orly Taitz, she's the queen of the "Birther" movement, which contends Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Taitz has been laughed out of courtroom after courtroom as she doggedly pursues her so-called "case" against Obama. She's prime joke fodder, but a recent post on her blog indicates she might be a tad dangerous, too:

"What is the real intention of this Kenyan, Indonesian communist usurper? Is it to provide security for us or to destroy our security? Judge for yourself.

"Seeing targeted destruction of our economy, our security, dissipation of American jobs, massive corruption in the Government, Congress Department of Justice and Judiciary, it might be time to start rallies and protests using our second amendment right to bare arms and organise in militias."

Sounds like a call to arms to me…. and possibly to many others, in which Taitz's already bad year may just be an inkling of what's to come for her. Here's a rundown of her low points in 2009:

• August 3: MSNBC's David Shuster calls out Taitz on live TV after she lashes out at "Obama's brownshirts" in the media. Said Shuster: "You're making a reference to Nazi Germany, and to a lot of us who lost relatives in the Holocaust, this is deeply, deeply offensive."
• August 6: In a sign of an intra-Birther power struggle, fellow conspiracy theorist Andy Martin publicly declares it's time to "shut down the Orly Taitz circus."
• Sept. 16: Federal Judge Clay Land, who is presiding over a Georgia Birther case, belittles Taitz in a widely circulated order that accuses Taitz of failing to understand legal principles grasped by "any middle school civics student." Land adds: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."
• Sept. 17: A fellow member of the California bar files a complaint in response to Taitz's call — during an interview with TPMmuckraker — for Judge Land to be tried for treason.
• Sept. 21: Army Captain Connie Rhodes, Taitz's own client in the Georgia Birther case, sends a letter to the judge renouncing Taitz as her counsel. Rhodes, who sent the letter while deploying to Iraq, tells the judge that Taitz submitted an emergency filing without Rhodes' permission or blessing.
• October 13: A frustrated Land fines Taitz $20,000 for repeated frivolous filings. "When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law," he writes. "When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice."
• October 14: Appearing on Joy Behar's show, Taitz is forced to explain why she described the judge as "delusional":
• November 12: An affidavit from a prospective witness in a California Birther case alleges that Taitz asked witnesses to perjure themselves — and much worse.

Anyone who supports this woman or her cause should be ashamed of themselves.

I have noticed a local computer shop or two promoting a “special” which consists of reinstalling a user’s Windows operating system for a flat fee.

Let me just say that any shop that pushes a full reinstall of the operating system as a fix to ordinary problems should not be in business. Sure, it’s an ideal means to restore a computer to pristine running condition, but unless the shop is also going to back up your existing data, and then reinstall it along with all your needed extra applications, don’t fall for this scheme.

Any decent computer technician should be able to clean viruses and spyware off your machine, or replace any essential Windows system files that are damaged or missing, without having to wipe your disc drive clean and start from scratch.

Shame on any computer shop that advertises a full operating system reinstall as an easy fix to what ails your PC.

As Sarah Palin continues to refuse to back off of her claim that healthcare reform would create death panels, something interesting has emerged from her time as Alaska governor. Last year as governor, Palin endorsed end of life counseling in a Healthcare Decision Days Proclamation. Palin was for death panels before she was against them.

According to Think Progress, the proclamation stated, “WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions…

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.”

This is quite different from the argument that Palin continues to make on her Facebook page, “Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.”

She said the consultations could be coercive, “With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.”

So it seems that Palin was in favor of the same “coercive death panels” last year that she now opposes. Apparently before she wanted to run for president end of life counseling was fine to encourage, but when Obama proposes the same thing, they are death panels. Palin’s obvious hypocrisy and flip flops are what make her such a joke. I am sure the cult of Sarah will have some sort of lame defense, or maybe Palin wants to kill grandma too.

Sarah Palin’s decision to step down as governor of Alaska has the right shedding tears of disappointment and sorrow, and naturally the first thing they do is blame the big bad liberal media and the Godless liberal left wing loonies.

Time for a fact check, my right wing friends – politics is a dirty business and adherents of both parties have been guilty of gutterball tactics. Everyone’s favorite bellowing right wing pundit, Rush Limbaugh, once called Chelsea Clinton “a dog”. Hillary Clinton was, and continues to be, the butt of jokes regarding her husband’s dalliances, her own physical appearance, and even her sexual preferences. And let’s not forget the endless baseless accusations bandied about concerning Barack Obama’s citizenship, his “palling around with terrorists”, his patriotism and his religious persuasion.

Still, this type of nonsense is part and parcel of a prominent politician’s life. Countless leaders in our government have endured this, remained above the fray, kept their head held high, and continued to serve. By resigning her governorship, Mrs. Palin shows that she simply doesn’t have what it takes to play the game. This is a person who many see as a potential presidential candidate? Would we want a president who has shown a remarkable lack of fortitude in walking away from a job because the going got tough? Would President Palin decide to step down the first time her approval ratings dropped or one of her measures failed in Congress?

Many on the right are spinning her resignation as a smart move in preparation for a 2012 presidential run. Of course! The best way to show you’re presidential material is to quit.

Deep down, not even those spouting the spin really believe it.

I am a musical creature of the 1970s and not the 1980s. I went through my teens during the era of what’s now called “classic rock” – bands like Aerosmith, Kiss, Queen and Journey were in their heyday. I remember when “Off The Wall” came out but never had any interest in listening to it, although on the few occasions when I actually tuned into a top-40 radio station, the title track seemed to always be playing.

So no, I was not a Michael Jackson fan per se. In this light, it’s worth noting that when I first saw the Thriller video, I was as impressed as any hardcore Jackson fan. It was slick, well produced and years ahead of anything else in that genre. Don’t forget this was long before MTV made music videos a part of our culture, and most of them at this time were not very memorable on a technical or musical basis.

To be perfectly honest, I didn’t quite understand all the fuss at the time over Michael Jackson himself. The one-glove bit was ludicrous. He could sure dance and sing, but the ever-present sunglasses, carefully curled hair and outlandish clothes made me snicker on more than one occasion.

By the time “Bad” was released, Jackson was already a joke to many. His music had become overshadowed by his odd behavior, plastic surgeries, accusations of child abuse and everything else. Jackson gradually deteriorated into just another sad case of too much fame being gifted to someone who wasn’t equipped to deal with it.

And yet, the news of his death a few days ago gave me pause. I’d forgotten, as had millions of others, how important he was to the way the music industry had evolved and changed; how incredible a performer he’d been; how much skill and craft could be found in his music.

The debate rages on about how his personal life must or should be reconciled with his artistic one. Some feel that the two cannot be judged separately; that his artistic legacy is forever tarnished or ruined by the things he did and/or was accused of doing. But can we honestly criticize Michael Jackson’s actions without considering how his own suffered abuse no doubt shaped his later life and reported actions?

I’m not sure, yet I don’t want to free him from all blame for his actions, either. Can we negate the influence he had on generations for his music, when in fact many classical artists universally revered today in academic circles would be condemned by the public for their personal behavior if it were revealed in the tabloids the way Jackson’s was?

These questions are not raised to negate the severity of issues of child and sexual abuse, should they ever be concretely proven in Michael Jackson’s case. I only mention them because he’s left a very complex and not at all neat and clean legacy behind.

It will only be in decades or even centuries that we are able to state who were truly the legendary and influential artists and creators of our time. Will Michael Jackson be on the short list? I think he will. His personal life and behavior should, in the long run, be irrelevant to his importance and impact on the world of music.

Going through some boxes of books this evening, I ran across one of my favorites that I haven't read in many years – Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, an adaptation of a bygone series on public television. Opening it up and browsing through a few pages brought back a flood of memories.

In 1980 I was 22 years old and a heck of a lot thinner than I am today. My main interest back then was rock and roll… I was pretty proficient on the guitar and loved to play along with my favorite bands when I dropped one of their records on the turntable. I also thought Carl Sagan was one of the coolest guys in the world. Sagan hosted a new series on PBS titled Cosmos and from the first episode I was hooked. As a youngster I had been fascinated with astronomy. I had several telescopes and devoured any books I could find on the subject.

Over time my interest waned as I moved on to other things. But now here was Sagan, suave in his red turtleneck and buff jacket, surrounded by special effects and Vangelis music and telling everyone (but especially me) about how the cosmos is everything that ever was, everything that is, and everything that ever will be. Heady stuff. I'm still a great admirer of Carl Sagan, primarily because he did something I see as immensely important: he popularized science and with patience and good humor brought into people's homes. He did it through Cosmos, most obviously, but he also did it every time he popped up on The Tonight Show and talked with celebrity fluidity about what was going on in the universe.

He was the people's scientist. Getting science in front of people in a way they can understand — without speaking down to them — is the way to get people to support science, and to understand that science is neither beyond their comprehension nor hostile to their beliefs. There need to be scientists and popularizers of good science who are of good will, who have patience and humor, and who are willing to sit with those who are skeptical or unknowing of science and show how science is already speaking their language.

Sagan knew how to do this; he was uncommonly good at it. I have an idealized version of Carl Sagan in my head, of course, one that is notably absent any number of flaws that the real Carl Sagan had to have had simply because he was human. My connection to Sagan comes from some limited number of hours of television and a finite number of books, and in both cases the man was edited for my consumption. What I do know is that I like his ideas. I like his love of science. I like his faith in humanity. I like how he saw us reaching for things greater than ourselves, because it was in our nature and because it was a fulfillment of our nature. I like how he shared his enthusiasm for the entire universe with everyone, and believed that everyone could share in that enthusiasm.

Dr. Sagan left us much too soon – he was only 62 when he died of bone marrow cancer in 1996. However, he did leave behind some great printed works, and his television series can still be found on DVD. Even if astronomy or astrophysics are subjects that doesn't interest you, Sagan wrote on topics as diverse as the evolution of the human brain to morality and the abortion debate. Reading the above, it seems like a tribute to be given at a funeral, written 12 years too late. But for some reason tonight, I had the urge to write about a great scientist, author and human being, and to share it with whoever might happen to stumble upon it in their web travels. Thank you, Carl, for making me wonder again after I thought I had grown too jaded to do so.

As a former employee of the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, I was shocked and saddened to learn of the sudden death of longtime executive editor Tom Colley on Saturday, January 10. I worked with Tom for nearly nine years, and his dedication to his profession, his community and his newspaper were truly inspiring.

I was a graphic artist and as such did not work with Tom on a daily basis. However, I also wrote an opinion column for many months back in 2006, and thus got to know Tom a lot better as he worked with me to hone my writing skills and get my message across in limited editorial space.

This was an exciting time for me and Tom really enjoyed the often heated public responses to my unashamedly biased approach to politics, religion and local issues. He sometimes joked to me that page A-4 of the Thursday edition, which was when my column ran, seemed to be the only page of the paper read on those days. This was when the BDT had an electronic message board tied to the online edition, and we would really get a kick out of the discussion my columns generated.

Tom even told me that he would sometimes receive extremely nasty emails or phone calls concerning something I had written. But to his credit, he would run what I wrote and let the chips fall where they may. He always said that feedback of any type meant people were genuinely interested in the topic at hand, even if they didn’t agree with the conclusions of the writer.

Thanks, Tom, for allowing me the opportunity to connect with our readers, and for your always steady hand at the wheel as we went through ownership and staff changes. Through it all, Tom never lost his vision of what the BDT should be, and of the responsibilities of the news and editorial staff.

More than anyone else, Tom WAS the Bluefield Daily Telegraph. The paper will continue, and no doubt someone will ably step into his position and carry onward. However, it simply won’t be the same newspaper without Tom sitting in his office on the third floor.