(Mike Hirshon | Student Life)

Man walking on the moon…the fall of the Berlin Wall…the premiere of The Jay Leno Show? Okay, so maybe that last one isn’t quite as monumental, but it’s revolutionary nonetheless. Late night television has always been just that—late at night—yet now one man has dared to cross over into that unknown realm of lore: primetime.

It all began back in 2004, when NBC announced that Jay Leno, host of The Tonight Show since 1992, would hand over the reins to Conan O’Brien in 2009. I was disheartened at the time (as I’m sure others were), but figured the actual transfer of power was so remotely distant that it wasn’t worth fretting over. Additionally, Leno seemed very upbeat about the whole thing, like someone who’d had his moment in the sun and was ready to move on, and the apparent amicability between him and NBC erased any suspicions I might have had.

By 2008, however, the tension was palpable, as Leno’s days on The Tonight Show quickly diminished and rumors ran rampant of a potential move to ABC, FOX, or even syndicated television. Late night television seemed destined for some kind of shakeup, but in December there came perhaps the least expected announcement of all: Mr. Leno was going to primetime.

From NBC’s perspective, this made perfect sense. After all, they were mired in last place, and with the days of Brandon Tartikoff and “must-see TV” far in the rear view mirror, Leno was perhaps the network’s biggest (and one of its few) assets. Though NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker is largely responsible for the network’s collapse, he deserves at least some credit for salvaging the fractured relationship with Leno. Of course, Jay himself came out of the whole fray as the obvious winner, both from the outcry of public support he received and the loyalty he showed by staying at the network that had given him his big break.

So now Jay Leno is back, and for NBC it is not a moment too soon. Ratings for The Tonight Show have plummeted since Conan took over, and when you add in a weak fall lineup, it’s not hard to see why some have said the network is banking on Leno to save it from total ruin. These are incredibly lofty expectations, but if anyone can do it, it’s Leno.

His always-humorous material and on-the-money delivery are reason for optimism, but those aren’t what will make or break The Jay Leno Show.

No, it’s going to be Jay himself, and whether or not people want to watch him. Most network primetime shows require at least a degree of regular viewing to comprehend them, and to shift viewers to what is almost a carbon copy of the The Tonight Show at 10 p.m. will be no easy task. I’ve watched the first episode, and while it wasn’t bad (a typically hilarious opening monologue and the always laugh-out-loud “Headlines” segment stood out), I didn’t sense that there was enough to make people tune in on a consistent basis. It’s one thing when you’ve got Kanye West the day after he makes a fool of himself at the VMAs, but where does Leno go from here? Sure, he’s stacked the register this week with a bunch of big names, but will avid viewers really abandon their longtime favorites in favor of this? Right now, I just can’t say.

In 1968, a relatively unknown high jumper named Dick Fosbury made waves in the sporting world when he won an Olympic Gold Medal using a revolutionary new technique he had developed. Though initially it was scoffed at and dismissed, the “Fosbury Flop” is today utilized by virtually all high jumpers. Will we look back in a decade, when the entire primetime slate is filled with what we now call late night television, and recall how the “Leno Leap” made it all possible? Only time will tell.

is a nightmare.
It isn’t just that you have to change your password frequently (every three months, I believe, though it seems more often than that), or that once you’ve used a password once it can’t be recycled. No, the problem is even more basic: coming up with a password that fits all the required parameters is about as complicated as solving a Rubik’s Cube. Yes, there are multiple “solutions”—in fact a great many—but the amount of time spent in order to reach some “proper” combination of letters, numbers, and—worst of all—special symbols (such as @ or $) is utterly ridiculous.
I’ll admit that, with all the problems in the world today, this is pretty far down on the totem pole. But it’s also incredibly inefficient, and most importantly makes absolutely no sense. Passwords are supposed to protect others from viewing your private details (though hackers nowadays can easily get in if they want), yet at the same time, they’re intended to be things that are easy for you to remember. I have accounts on Yahoo, YouTube, IMDB, and a slew of other Web sites, and among all of them I’m allowed to use the same one or two passwords. As a result, by now these key words are imbedded in my mind. When I’m arbitrarily altering letters, numbers and special symbols for no other reason than to fill up the “password strength” box, all the WUSTL Key is doing is ensuring that I’ll forget it by the next time I need to get on WebSTAC.
The most disconcerting part of all this, though, is that there’s no plausible explanation for why such a complicated password is necessary. For starters, just consider what “valuable information” you can find on WebSTAC. There’s the “course listings” tab, but I’d gladly tell anyone my schedule. My grades are on there too, but honestly I don’t care—in an economy where Ivy League grads are a dime a dozen at fast food restaurants (and I don’t mean they’re stopping in for a quick lunch), GPA could just as well be MIA from my transcript and I’d probably still have the same chance of getting hired. Last but not least in this top-secret trio, there’s my bill: tuition, room and board, meal plan and the like. As for that, I say go right ahead and check it out. “Ooh” and “Ahh” at my shocking trips to the bookstore or even—“gasp”—my weekly use of the washing and drying machines in my dorm. While you’re looking at all this, why don’t you go ahead and pay the whole thing off your own credit card too. I’d appreciate it very much.
By now, I’m pretty sure you’re laughing your head off at someone who apparently can’t just come up with a random combination of characters, write it down on a piece of paper and stick that paper somewhere safe. Well, to tell the truth, I’m paranoid (not lazy, as I’m sure you thought) when it comes to keeping any sort of personal info outside my head—but that isn’t the point. I’m all for taking precautions to protect individual privacy, but when accessing my bank account is easier than logging onto WebSTAC, there just might be a problem.

Now, maybe I’ve just reached the inevitable life stage of curmudgeon a couple decades ahead of schedule, but I have to say that the last few months have only intensified a developing desire to dealign myself from any political party affiliation. As shocking as it may sound from someone who used to vote straight Democrat across the board, even if it meant picking a knowingly corrupt candidate on several occasions, the truth is that I’ve had about enough with the seemingly increasing number of extremists. As far as the right is concerned—well, since I was first exposed to the thought of uber-conservatives like Limbaugh—I’ve promised myself I’d never support a platform that could actually consider such people—who often make statements too heinous to mention here—as representing (or even leading, if you believe Rahm Emanuel) the Republican Party.

It wasn’t until recently, though, that I came to see just how the opposite end of the spectrum employs disturbingly similar tactics. From Garofalo classifying tea-party protestors as “racists” to reporters in the field and anchors in studio mocking what they snidely deemed “tea-bagging,” what we saw was a categorically shameful display. Yes, you can say that this was only a few individuals and that it is in no way representative of the entire population, but frankly I’m just not so sure anymore. Maybe it’s because I recently went over to the so-called “dark side” and started complementing my main course of CNN with a side dish of Fox News, but now more than ever I feel aware of the incredible division that permeates our society today.

Just look at the polls and you’ll see it firsthand: Last I saw about 75 percent of Democrats approved of Obama’s work thus far, while the same percentage of Republicans disapproved of the job he’s doing. Turn on CNN and they’ll tell you things have begun to pick up; then switch over to Fox News and hear about how the current administration’s policies have already failed. Let’s face it: If Obama captured Osama bin Laden tomorrow, we’d hear from the right that it should have been done sooner, and if he got down on one knee to greet Hugo Chávez, the left would say he was just tying his shoe.

You may say I’m just overreacting to what is nothing more than a proud display of the First Amendment at its finest, but if this truly is bipartisanism, then from now on I’ll take my chances as an independent.

These are just a few of the multitude of diverse stories accessible through the Drudge Report, a news aggregation Web site owned and operated by one of the media’s most likable villains, Matt Drudge. He’s a former 7-Eleven employee (a job for which he says he was well-qualified, having graduated 341st out of 355 in his high school class) who was at one point arrested for making prank phone calls and eventually sent to a psychiatric institution. Isn’t it rather ironic, then, that this son of Jewish liberal Democrats has gone on to become one of the most powerful forces for conservatism in America today?

For Drudge, there’s no trade-off between quality and quantity. As for what’s on the page, well, the answer is everything. Just look in the left and middle columns, after the actual stories, and you’ll see what’s got to be at least 200 potential contributors to the Drudge Report, sources representing both the news we need to hear (such as the Associated Press and Reuters) and the news we like to hear (like the Smoking Gun). From the plethora of options available, Drudge carefully (at least it seems) selects between about 25 and 50 and posts the links. There’s always an eclectic mix of subjects, and thus a salient story no matter what you’re after.

What makes the Drudge Report truly different, though, are the headlines. With the (supposedly) unbiased CNN or The New York Times, you’re likely to have a pretty good idea of what you’ll get if you click on the link, but good old Mr. Drudge doesn’t much care what you think—as long as you read what he’s got to say. My personal favorite from the past year would have to be George Stephanopoulos’ report about Joe Biden discussing the dire situation with the economy (“Biden: U.S. Economy in Danger of ‘Absolutely Tanking’”). Drudge kept the headline for sure, only he decided to add one little word to the beginning (hint: think miserly Charles Dickens’ characters), so as to elucidate his personal views on the then vice president-elect. It was certainly funny, but what’s more important is that it enticed me to read the actual article.

Of course, Drudge’s style isn’t for everyone. To Keith Olbermann he’s “an idiot with a modem,” and Newsweek writer and Washington University graduate Michael Isikoff (whose story revealing the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal launched the Drudge Report to national prominence) called Drudge “a menace to honest, responsible journalism.” There have been occasions on which he’s erred—mainly stories that turned out to be hoaxes—but on the whole Drudge has had many more hits than he has had misses. So if you’re tired of all the “conventional” news sites or just have some time to kill, check out the Drudge Report. You won’t regret it.

Many people make excuses about why they can’t complete their New Year’s resolutions, but the simple truth is this: they set the bar too high. If you’ve lived a sedentary lifestyle for years, then you’re not going to be ready to run a marathon in a month. Things like this just don’t happen. Nevertheless, people expect quick fixes, and when they don’t get them, they decide it’s just not worth it.

The problem can be seen on a grander scale, too. I can’t tell you how many times I hear some economist say that the economy will be “fixed” by year X or an expert predict peace in the Middle East within Y months; yet wouldn’t it be more practical to think about taking small steps rather than giant leaps? How about we try to stop the market from getting worse instead of trying to return to a golden age? Why not attempt to negotiate a cessation of the current hostilities before we talk about resolving a centuries-old conflict?

Of course I’m not suggesting that wishful thinking is a bad thing, merely that it needs to be complemented with a sense of reality. As far back as I can remember, I’ve absolutely despised green vegetables (I don’t exactly know why, but I just can’t stomach them). Sure, doctors recommend five servings a day, but I can’t just dive into a salad and expect to eat the whole thing. I’ve got to start small, maybe a few pieces of lettuce, and work my way up over time. This may sound stupid (and yes, I am pretty embarrassed about it), but the idea can be applied to virtually any issue, big or small.

Last but not least, remember that you’ve still got a good 50 weeks to make those New Year’s resolutions happen. If you’ve gotten lazy already, then consider this your wake-up call. It’s not too late for all those people to start frequenting the Concourse Athletic Club again, and hopefully I’ll see a bunch of them when I go back there this summer. And who knows? Maybe when they see me, I’ll even have a piece of lettuce stuck between my teeth.

//

On the one hand, it could be argued that Obama is merely keeping his campaign promise to eliminate the kind of divisive partisan politics that have dominated Washington in the past. Put your chief competitor by your side, a guy or two from across the aisle in your Cabinet (Chuck Hagel anyone?), and while you’re at it keep the old Secretary of Defense-you know, the one who DIDN’T lead us into a futile and meaningless war. There’s nothing wrong with this, especially if these are in fact the best candidates for the job. If Hillary Clinton’s credentials exceed those of, say, John Kerry or Bill Richardson, then by all means she should get the job. Perhaps this is just President-elect Obama surrounding himself with the best people, and if this is the case then I applaud him for his meritocratic approach to presidential appointments.

The political strategist in me, however, is not so quick to offer praise for this country-first attitude. One must at least consider the possibility that Obama, who’s shown himself to have quite a bit of street smarts in addition to that Harvard education, may have an ulterior motive in making these people his subordinates. “Hillary: The World Tour” could be good for the country, but it’s also sure to decrease the likelihood of a challenge in four years (and she certainly wouldn’t be the first junior Senator to run a presidential campaign while serving out his or her term, would she?). Plus, there’s loyalty. When’s the last time you remember a secretary of state criticizing the president who appointed them? It doesn’t happen often.

But honestly, if Obama did have some sinister reason for appointing the people around him (which is unlikely considering most of his early appointees have merely been beneficiaries of the spoils system), who would profit? Not Obama, because if the Bush administration has taught us anything it’s that beyond their own personal failures, incompetent people will inevitably cast their employer in a pretty bad light (see: Gonzalez, Alberto and Rumsfeld, Donald). And as for the rest of us, well, except for Annette Bening (or whoever’s going to star in “The Hillary Clinton Story”) we wouldn’t be particularly well-off.

So what’s the point of all this, other than to sound like Spin Doctor Junior? Well, beyond the obvious (we’re talking about Hillary Clinton as secretary of state here) there’s the fact that it’s one of our President-elect’s biggest decisions thus far, and one that will no doubt impact his tenure as President of the United States, which of course hasn’t even technically started yet. And while we’re on the topic of how there is more than two months between Election Day and Inauguration Day…but that can wait until next time.

Of course if you followed last week’s news of the odd, than you almost certainly know where I’m going with this. An offensive lineman at a Division II school chose football over a finger. Let me say that again: when told he needed season-ending surgery on his dislocated pinky, he told the doctors just to lop it off so that he could play. Now, before you pronounce final judgment on this guy, you should note two arguments that can be made in support of his choice. The first is that football’s been his life since he was playing Pop Warner, and now he’s a senior with just a couple of games left in his career. The second is that a person can survive without one little pinky.

Be that as it may, however, this is just the latest publicized account of athletes prioritizing sports over life. How often do we hear after the fact that someone took the field with a broken this or a torn that? More often than not, playing injured backfires and the quarterback throws four interceptions or the pitcher gives up eight runs. Yet the most shocking part about all this, at least to me, is that the injury often becomes the source of blame for the poor performance. Coaches are likely to say that someone didn’t have their “A” game because they were injured, instead of bringing up the fact that they shouldn’t have been playing at all. One would think the reason behind this is to avoid criticism for allowing an athlete to play injured, but this isn’t the case. In fact, I constantly hear the media rip athletes who don’t play as being “soft,” when any doctor would call it a basic concern for one’s well-being.

Yes, clichés like “chicks dig scars” and “pain is temporary, pride lasts forever” can be found a dime a dozen in our culture today, and it’s generally valid to argue that a professional athlete playing a little banged up is just like the office worker who goes in with a cold. But even for the toughest of the tough, there is a threshold beyond which the only option is calling in sick. If I’ve got a 102 fever, I stay in a day or two and get better. I don’t go to class, where I might only make my illness worse.

All of this seems like it should be common sense, but evidently to people like Trevor Wikre (of the amputated pinky), there are some things more important than a measly appendage. Who knows, maybe he’ll be able to milk all this publicity for enough TV appearances to let him live happily for the rest of his life. But what happens if he finishes his football career, maybe in the process even winning some awards or leading his team deep into the playoffs, only to find that perhaps he was a bit rash in getting rid of that finger, that having 10 fingers instead of nine might just have made the rest of his life a lot easier? Unlikely, yes, but it could happen.

Recently, a gallant knight has continued his journey toward what seems to be an inevitable January coronation. I acknowledge that I’ve been anti-Obama for a while, and I have said (and continue to say) that my almost certain vote for John McCain will in effect be a vote against Barack Obama, so perhaps I’m just bitter. Maybe I’m clinging to my words and my computer as a means of expressing frustration over what appears to be an imminent victory for “the change we need.” But what if this isn’t actually the change we need, but rather the change we’ve been told we need?

Within a span of a few days last week, I came across three seemingly subtle actions taken by the Obama campaign in a stated attempt to get across its message. First and most apparently innocuous was a group of schoolchildren gathered on a Sunday afternoon to enlighten those present (and millions more via YouTube) with such thought-provoking tunes as “Sing For Change,” “Yes We Can,” and “We’re Gonna Change The World,” the last of which was written by a nine-year-old who I’m sure we’ll see on “American Idol” within the next decade.

Now, I’d like to think the children did this of their own will and desire. Their music teacher served merely as a guide and organizer (in addition to composing two of the songs), and could never have concocted such a diabolical scheme as the college professor who offered credit to anyone who would vote for Obama or the teachers’ union that had an “Obama Blue Day,” right? I hate to sound cynical, especially when it comes to kids, but you never know.

Next was something closer to home, and I mean literally, because it happened right here in Missouri. Law enforcement officials organized what were dubbed as “truth squads,” their purpose being to block the playing of ads airing falsities against Obama. By truth squads, I mean no-nonsense lawyers, and by falsities, I mean statements unfavorable to Obama and his pristine public image. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought violating the First Amendment was the sort of thing associated with the current administration, or was I asleep when Congress passed another Sedition Act?

Well, this seemed about as outrageous as it could get, but what happened next was the icing on the cake: Obama purchased his own TV station. That’s right, Channel 73 on DISH Network is now titled simply OBAMA. I wonder what’s on that? Well, according to the program description “Sen. Obama lays out his plan for a strong and prosperous America.” Not only that, but viewers get the chance to “see his plan to revitalize the economy and put the middle class first.” And then they see it again. And again.

And…well, you get the point. Alas, in these cash strapped times I can’t afford a DISH subscription, much less my own station, but I imagine that OBAMA TV is a lot like watching (or rather being watched by) Big Brother on the ubiquitous television screens in “1984.”

I’m obviously not telling you right now that an Obama administration will be akin to the Galactic Empire, and (unless you’re Missouri Governor Matt Blunt) the Obama campaign’s tactics aren’t at the level of a Soviet-era police state. However, for someone supposed to be about the people of Main Street as opposed to Wall Street, there’s certainly a very strong effort being made to force a certain projection of Obama down ordinary people’s throats. He’s the protector of the poor, defender of the downtrodden, a paragon of CHRISTIAN charity whose entire campaign is really about taking back this nation for the masses. Of course he is (and has been from the get go) running for the most powerful position in the world, an office that will be his and his alone to cherish, but he’s hopeful nobody will hear about that.

And if the polls are any indication, he’s succeeding.

It’s hard to explain when I think about it, because she and I are about as different as two people can be. Beyond the obvious (such as gender, age and the like), there are beliefs. The most obvious conflict comes in the area of social policy, where (among other things) she condemns abortion as an “atrocity” (even in cases of rape and incest) and believes that any John Q. Citizen should be allowed to carry a gun. There’s also her environmental stance, though with everything else that’s wrong in the world right now I’m willing to cede a little ground here. And finally, though I’m normally all for raising taxes, the economic exigency and the current state of the market has me “spooked,” you might say, into leaning to the right on financial matters.

Beyond the issues, there’s also the shroud of controversy that has seemed to blanket Palin since she entered the national spotlight. The “Bridge to Nowhere,” her daughter’s out-of-wedlock child, the investigation into a questionable firing of a public official…I’m not denying that she’s got dirt. But who doesn’t? There have been more skeletons (and larger ones at that) in the closets of some of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen. While I’m obviously not guaranteeing that Palin will follow in such footsteps, at this point in time, nothing’s come to light that merits crucifying her or her political career.

So finally, let me explain what it is about Palin that’s got me on the bandwagon. It essentially comes down to what kind of a figurehead this nation needs. Were it a time of prosperity at home and peace abroad, then perhaps our leadership could reflect likewise. Alas, this is not the case, and in the face of a failing economy, strained international relations and a society on the brink of imploding, what we need is strength.

Now, please don’t take my words as a call to authoritarianism, because nothing could be further from the truth. I’m about as left wing as it gets, but these are desperate times. Congress is a mess, and chances are that a few new cogs won’t fix the machine. That means the fate of the nation may very well hinge on the executive branch, where the choice seems to be Obama or Palin (I say this to heed the wishes of many Palin oppositionists who have quickly dismissed the notion of a full McCain term based on his age and health).

Obama’s more likable than Palin; I don’t deny that. He seems intelligent and down-to-earth, while she comes across as humorless and confrontational. I’d love to have dinner with him sometime, and I don’t think I could stand five minutes in her presence, but this isn’t high school, where we choose friends based on likeability and “coolness.” This is the real world, and someone needs to stand up there and tell us what to do. I don’t want a kind professor with a soothing voice who tries to convince me to believe in myself, not with the direness of things today. I need the cold lecturer who hits the ruler on her desk to call the class to order, then proceeds to enumerate the rules as they will be followed.

Let me just close by saying that I know this sounds very controversial, especially coming from someone who’s normally so liberal. To espouse what could very well be described as a “new Napoleon,” if you will, may in retrospect be one of the stupidest decisions I’ve ever made, especially if either (a) Obama wins and does a great job, or (b) McCain wins and Palin fails miserably (whether it be as president or vice president). It basically comes down to the way things are and how I think they need to be handled. Perhaps I put too much stake in the past, but I feel like we need a strong-willed leader to carry us over the hill. Based on this assessment then (and barring some shocking revelation or dramatic change of events in the coming weeks) I will temporarily abandon my roots and vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

Now comes the hard part.

As I write this, life is swell. I’m moved in to my new four-person suite and am enjoying my nice comfy single (it makes me wonder how I could have ever survived an entire year in a double…). My floormates have impressed me with the various amenities they’ve brought from home—everything from a weight bench to every video game imaginable. Yes, it has been a fun week.

But alas, it cannot last, and college must become school. That’s right, believe it or not this isn’t just one big party. I was a freshman not so long ago, enduring a grueling first week of Club 40, Target Night, watching “Knocked Up” on the swamp and other similarly taxing endeavors. Throw in late night poker and musical jam sessions in the hallways of my dorm, and life seemed perfect.

Do you want to get eight hours of sleep per night or per week?

Then suddenly, before you can walk from the clock tower to Wohl Center (that is, even before all the construction), you’ve got a midterm Monday, a paper due Tuesday, another midterm Wednesday, another paper due Thursday, and play practice or a cappella rehearsal for three hours every night of the week. Of course with all this looming, you know that you’ll want to have fun on the weekend, meaning that Friday and Saturday are out. Sunday is for sleeping in, doing laundry and relaxing after a long and arduous week, so you definitely can’t do any work then, right?

Believe it or not, more than a few people actually do follow a routine similar to this. It is, of course, possible and there’s nothing illegal in doing all your work from twelve to five on the weeknights. Just ask yourself, though, if this is really what you came here for. If the answer’s yes, then go right ahead and give up sleep. It’s no skin off my back.

If the answer’s no, though, then the best advice I can give you is to experiment. All work and no play may make Jack a dull boy, but all play and no work probably won’t be good for Jack in a couple years when he’s trying to find a job or get into graduate school. Find that balance between your academics, extra-curricular actvities, social life, sleep and whatever else there is that you need. It can be done.

But enough with my ramblings for now. You’re all smart people, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. You no doubt have goals and aspirations, both for here and beyond, so all you have to do is ask yourself how you’re going to get there. Are you shooting for a 4.0 or just hoping for passing grades? Do you intend on becoming captain of your athletic team, or are you just there to compete and have fun? Will you party hard or hardly party? And last but certainly not least, do you want to get eight hours of sleep per night or per week?

If you can answer these and other questions, then you’ll be well on your way to a fun and successful year.