tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32310259711795796982024-03-09T05:02:16.210-05:00The Second AgeExamining contemporary politics and society with an historical lens.Natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11221202230365353676noreply@blogger.comBlogger449125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-68395148493696535192015-12-11T10:42:00.000-05:002015-12-11T10:42:51.979-05:00Whatever a Man Sows, That He Will Also Reap<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlB1_oP69le3xGezi_zIjDo1bTVR8PtQNuUoUE-IxQFsQEwA0nvYvPISB8Jezy1xmxEFJHaPc8uzY1KyZfYl5ICTifDo-tE3AlPui58zqphhJOLMd1KruXF87zhL7dwTViAx-Rgs3rJt7p/s1600/205_172782.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlB1_oP69le3xGezi_zIjDo1bTVR8PtQNuUoUE-IxQFsQEwA0nvYvPISB8Jezy1xmxEFJHaPc8uzY1KyZfYl5ICTifDo-tE3AlPui58zqphhJOLMd1KruXF87zhL7dwTViAx-Rgs3rJt7p/s400/205_172782.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Rick McKee cartoon, <a href="http://theweek.com/cartoons/593690/political-cartoon-trump-media" target="_blank">(c) 2015 Cagle Cartoons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The Republican Party is in trouble, as is indicated by their current representative vying for the highest office in the land. When trying to find out why they went wrong, however, the most useful tool would be a mirror.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump has gone from entertaining sideshow to dangerous demagogue. I'll admit at first that I fell into the attitude that he was a flash in the pan; something that, like summer, would be wrapped up by Labor Day.<br />
<br />
Not so. Today, Trump's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/10/trump-solidifies-his-lead-but-leaves-many-nervous/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news" target="_blank">numbers are as high as ever</a>. The media is <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/how-media-fueling-donald-trumps-campaign-n395821" target="_blank">tripping over themselves to let him on their shows</a>, just so he can lie over and over again while saying that the media is scum. It's a form of self-flagellation that not only hurts the media, but hurts the entire political atmosphere in America.<br />
<br />
The problem is that the American echo chamber, when replayed abroad, is portraying Donald Trump as speaking for the U.S. If every time someone overseas turns the television on and sees Trump bloviating on <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/" target="_blank">banning Muslim travel to the U.S.</a>, or saying the Paris attacks would have gone differently <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-paris-attacks-people-guns/story?id=35207857" target="_blank">if the victims had been armed</a>, or that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/19/donald-trump-muslim-americans-special-identification-tracking-mosques" target="_blank">Muslims need to carry special ID</a>, what else are they supposed to think?<br />
<br />
In the same way that so many people think that ISIS and Al Qaeda represent Islam, many people abroad are beginning to think that Donald Trump represents America. Neither are true, but the truth gets lost in perception time and time again.<br />
<br />
The GOP should not be surprised that the three current leading candidates to represent them in the 2016 election are Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. Three people that, if they boarded a New York subway and went into their stump speech, would have rational people rolling their eyes and wishing for Showtime.<br />
<br />
The Republican Party took a hard right when it came to religion and perceived morality in the 1980s with the election of Ronald Reagan and his use of the Religious Right. Barry Goldwater - the epitome of a pre-Reagan conservative - predicted the fall of the GOP 20 years ago, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm" target="_blank">when he warned Republicans</a> about letting the extreme religious portion of their party take over.<br />
<br />
They didn't heed that warning, and the result is that decades of sowing that side of the party has reaped them with three national embarrassments as their best candidates. The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/the-gop-hates-the-lamestream-media-even-more-than-you-think/" target="_blank">party's reliance on partisan media</a>, their willingness to <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/killing-the-immigration-bill-polarizing-america" target="_blank">court white voters almost exclusively</a>, and their inability to criticize Trump because <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-donald-trump-muslims_5666f8a7e4b079b28190092a" target="_blank">they think he's a victim</a> has led them to their current position. And they have no one the blame but themselves.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-64081180695900426352015-11-29T09:46:00.000-05:002015-11-29T09:46:00.789-05:00Mass Shootings: The Terrorism We Tolerate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPRqJ5Z7YIp0TzWI8XuGrtfMrIchdWEIDp-orK225dhWbxZmlK8CfSuk07VT89Hn3eNXkquhPrguu6oYpK171YwIPhKqJorkb4aZQ5-dEyWXZCe5OTFUE8pawH8giYLD7ImT4gMheBA_8J/s1600/mass_shooting_map.0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPRqJ5Z7YIp0TzWI8XuGrtfMrIchdWEIDp-orK225dhWbxZmlK8CfSuk07VT89Hn3eNXkquhPrguu6oYpK171YwIPhKqJorkb4aZQ5-dEyWXZCe5OTFUE8pawH8giYLD7ImT4gMheBA_8J/s400/mass_shooting_map.0.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mass shootings since Sandy Hook (<a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics" target="_blank">Vox</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The reaction of the United States following the Planned Parenthood shootings - a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/no-more-baby-parts-suspect-in-attack-at-colo-planned-parenthood-clinic-told-official/2015/11/28/e842b2cc-961e-11e5-8aa0-5d0946560a97_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_planned-parenthood-315pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory" target="_blank">clear act of terrorism</a>, even if the media is <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/why_white_people_arent_called_terrorist_the_media_accepts_that_people_who_resort_to_violence_are_left_wing_or_arab_or_both/" target="_blank">squeamish about labeling a white male a terrorist</a> - seems to be a collective shrug. Sure, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-obama-responds-to-gun-violence.html?_r=0" target="_blank">Obama has come out with strong words</a> against the act. Planned Parenthood <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-of-the-rocky-mountains-response-to-colorado-springs-attacks" target="_blank">has vowed to carry on its mission</a> with renewed vigor. And progressives across the county have called this tragedy what it is: the expected result of lax gun laws combined with a hot-button issue <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States" target="_blank">that has incited violence in the past</a>.<br />
<br />
What is missing is the political response that was so quick and furious following the Paris attacks. While the same kind of gun was used in Paris as was used in Colorado Springs, there were no calls on tightening gun applications like there were for refugee applications. In fact, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/28/3726108/presidential-candidates-colorado-shooting/" target="_blank">many of the presidential candidates have been silent</a> on the shooting.<br />
<br />
But, you may be saying, Colorado Springs was not nearly on the scale as Paris. And you'd be absolutely right when looked at in a vacuum. But if you look at America in 2015, <a href="http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015" target="_blank">431 people have perished in mass shootings</a>. This is a problem in the United States, and anyone who says otherwise is lying or delusional.<br />
<br />
It won't get better. Not in the short term, at least. The time to act on this would have been after <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2012/12/newtown-and-gun-control.html" target="_blank">a legally purchased firearm helped Adam Lanza kill 6 adults and 20 first graders</a> in cold blood. Instead, the response was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/put-armed-police-officers-in-every-school-nra-head-says/2012/12/21/9ac7d4ae-4b8b-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html" target="_blank">calls to put more guns in school</a>, not less. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/senate-obama-gun-control.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Legislation to expand gun control failed</a> in the Senate. America's elected representatives see victims like <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2013/04/collateral-damage.html" target="_blank">those children at Newtown as collateral damage</a> - a necessary, if unpleasant, sacrifice we need to pay to keep our easy access to powerful guns.<br />
<br />
We, as Americans, get the elected officials we deserve. If we continue to elect cowards more interested in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/politics/house-democrats-refugee-hearings-obama/" target="_blank">scoring political points via scare tactics about one kind of religious extremists</a>, while not only ignoring, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2014&id=D000000082" target="_blank">but enabling</a>, another kind of religious extremist, I'm not sure why we should expect any different than what we saw at Planned Parenthood on Friday. I'd say that we should expect mass shootings in America to become commonplace, but then <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/one-mass-shooting-happens-per-day-u-s-data-shows/" target="_blank">I'd be ignoring the fact that they already are</a>.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-31963690811271294482015-11-17T08:46:00.000-05:002015-11-17T10:12:32.906-05:00America and Refugees: Two Histories<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPrksF93q-fgLsva1GeMLA_76n7ANq8kD8YIs-Siq1KMIZq-6QTK-iJwm5ia4ktw1mUpvzgU2LkuXnPkaatOhT0iJYBvUZ_DGDsVN1M5WUcr79oBv0JzL6a34CE8g8dQD73uzYEmkAMIIP/s1600/2BF0413000000578-3222405-Sanctuary_Although_the_vast_majority_of_Syrian_refugees_live_in_-m-73_1441380822991.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPrksF93q-fgLsva1GeMLA_76n7ANq8kD8YIs-Siq1KMIZq-6QTK-iJwm5ia4ktw1mUpvzgU2LkuXnPkaatOhT0iJYBvUZ_DGDsVN1M5WUcr79oBv0JzL6a34CE8g8dQD73uzYEmkAMIIP/s400/2BF0413000000578-3222405-Sanctuary_Although_the_vast_majority_of_Syrian_refugees_live_in_-m-73_1441380822991.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Syrian refugees fleeing their homeland (<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222405/How-six-wealthiest-Gulf-Nations-refused-single-Syrian-refugee.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the days following the atrocious attacks in Paris, American politicians have wasted no time in laying the blame squarely where it does not belong: on the shoulders of the refugees fleeing the same kind of horror we collectively gasped at on Friday.<br />
<br />
Many state Republican governors (and one Democrat) pledged <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/texas-gov-greg-abbott-we-wont-accept-syrian-refugees-after-n464221" target="_blank">not to accept Syrian refugees</a> in their states, citing safety concerns. They feel that because one of the Paris attackers may have posed as a Syrian refugee, that their states will be the next to fall victim to a terrorist attack at the hands of a pseudo-refugee. The cognitive dissonance is especially rich with <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/16/baker-says-now-accepting-syrian-refugees/u2g7kmpDzdPwqgrQVmYiaI/story.html" target="_blank">Governor Charlie Baker from Massachusetts</a>, a state that began as a colony of people fleeing a volatile political environment.<br />
<br />
To begin with, the idea that Syrian refugees are just coming over to America without any kind of vetting process is absurd. It typically <a href="http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2013/210135.htm" target="_blank">takes 12-18 months</a> from the time of application to be able to enter the United States. On top of this, less than 1% of refugees worldwide are ever actually resettled to a third country. This small, highly vetted group is not coming to America to commit terrorist acts. They are coming to America and other Western nations to escape the very terrorism these governors and other reactionaries are accusing them of trying to further.<br />
<br />
But this all flies in the face of another issue: the main proponents of the Paris attacks were citizens of EU nations. Preventing only Syrians from coming to the United States does not solve for those radicalized in the very nations they seek to destroy. Slandering Syrian refugees in order to score political points by scaring one's electorate does absolutely nothing for national security, and instead further inflames anti-Muslim sentiment which helps drive radicalization.<br />
<br />
It does, however, call to mind a disgraceful time in the United States. During WWII, the US State Department tightened immigration policy, fearing that <a href="http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094" target="_blank">Jews fleeing Hitler and Nazism could be made to act as German agents</a> in the US. In an infamous case, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis" target="_blank">Washington turned away the <i>MS St. Louis</i></a>, a German ocean liner trying to find a place for over 900 Jewish refugees, forcing it to return to Europe, where over a quarter of the ship's passengers went on to perish in the Holocaust.<br />
<br />
But America has proven itself a world leader in this field in the past, with no major issues. From 1975 to 1997, nearly <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina_refugee_crisis" target="_blank">1.3 million refugees have been resettled in the United States from Indochina</a> following the fall of Saigon. In the first few months alone, 130,000 Vietnamese were resettled from a landscape scarred by a war fought in part by the United States.<br />
<br />
We have a choice here, as a nation. We can look back at our WWII policy, which hid behind xenophobia and disallowed Eastern Europe's victims into our borders, sending many to the gas chambers as a result. Or, we can lead the world, much like we did following the Vietnam War, and accept refugees coming from a region we have played a large part in destabilizing. The alternative is not just failing as a nation on a moral level, but serves up those seeking a better life (into which many of us just happened to be born) to groups like ISIS as either victims or recently spurned recruits.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-28042723662687366582015-11-15T20:25:00.001-05:002015-11-24T09:40:24.346-05:00Fighting Terror is More Than Defeating ISIS<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ynsq5ms9lvI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ynsq5ms9lvI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">A man plays John Lennon's "Imagine" in Paris after </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">the attacks on Friday</span></div>
<br />
The pernicious cancer that is ISIS has done what many thought was only the group's pipe dream: they attacked a Western nation, bringing the carnage and horror they have employed across Iraq, Syria, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11981239/Russian-plane-crash-sharm-el-sheikh-stranded-British-tourists-missile-latest-updates.html">Egypt</a> and <a href="http://mic.com/articles/128551/terrorist-suicide-bombing-attack-on-beirut-lebanon-kills-43-and-injures-hundreds#.E86aAZUEx">Beirut</a>.<br />
<br />
If you turn to Facebook or other social media, you'll see people's profile pictures adorned in the French tricolor, symbolizing solidarity with the wounded nation. An honorable gesture, to be sure, but one that I did not see utilized after the Beirut bombings, or the Sharm el-Sheikh plane crash, or the myriad other atrocities being committed across the Middle East. That's a problem.<br />
<br />
Yes, ISIS needs to be destroyed. We need to wipe them out completely. But if we want to avoid these tragedies in the future, we need to stop accepting Middle East instability as the norm. We need to stop catalyzing regime change with no post-change strategy. We need to stop throwing money at and selling arms to repressive regimes in the region. We need to start realizing that an unstable portion of the world is not only a threat to area nations, but to all nations. It is 2015, we are a globalized planet. Globalization doesn't just mean business can reach new international markets more easily, it also means that we are all that much more connected. ISIS and al-Qaeda aren't regional problems - they're now global.<br />
<br />
In response to 9/11, Washington declared a war on terrorism, which, on its face, is inane. You cannot declare war on an ideology - you will never, ever win. ISIS is a short-term manifestation of a long-term problem. When Joe Biden declared that the United States <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/11/vice-president-biden-afghanistan-it-s-afghans-who-must-build-their-nation">is not in the business of nation-building</a>, he was way off the mark. ISAF member nations cannot destroy a nation and then not step up when it is time to rebuild. Post-war infrastructure - economic, political, physical - needs to be part of any military strategy, otherwise you open the door to what we're seeing now.<br />
<br />
One thing that will not solve the ISIS problem - and will actually further long-term terrorism - is trying to close Western borders to those fleeing the unimaginable hell that exists in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. If Western nations are not willing to engage in post-war nation-building, then the very least they can do is take displaced civilians in. We as the West have an opportunity here to be known for humanitarianism and compassion instead of as the owners of unmanned aircraft that fire off missiles at any given moment in the Middle East. If we tell these civilians to stay where they are, all we are doing is serving them up to terrorist groups as either victims or recruits. That serves no one's end except the terrorists'.<br />
<br />
We can cut down limbs from the tree of terrorism, but if we're not addressing the root causes of the problem - war-torn hellscapes that these kids grow up in, with zero opportunities, be they economic or educational - we're not going to solve it. We cannot deny that we've helped create these environments that allow terrorism to flourish. We did it in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War">Afghanistan in the 80s</a>, we did it with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq">Iraq in the 2000s</a>, we did it with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi">Libya</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/">Syria</a> more recently. If we want to stop ISIS in the short term, we need to destroy them. If we want to minimize terrorism in the long term, we actually need to help to build stable Middle Eastern states.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-23568521285894863622015-06-18T18:44:00.000-04:002015-11-15T20:26:10.845-05:00South Carolina and Our Twisted Normal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ3OXa8C6k9bp48sh0o5EEiN4RpMo3dMpCpc81uRK3HOtvgJ3KlzrGo-hEWre27tDRSxY8IVbCxufy0dPK_iH8guEAWvIC6ubYle0S9oXHuP1eK07uto0t4GFZB6ITAQUeIanqj3rtCFVi/s1600/charleston-memorial009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ3OXa8C6k9bp48sh0o5EEiN4RpMo3dMpCpc81uRK3HOtvgJ3KlzrGo-hEWre27tDRSxY8IVbCxufy0dPK_iH8guEAWvIC6ubYle0S9oXHuP1eK07uto0t4GFZB6ITAQUeIanqj3rtCFVi/s320/charleston-memorial009.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A vigil at the Morris Brown AME Church in Charleston, SC (<a href="http://time.com/3927067/charleston-shooting-memorial/" target="_blank">Time</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">In echoes of 1963 Birmingham, a white terrorist entered a church and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0" target="_blank">killed nine people</a> last night in Charleston, South Carolina. As we try to understand acts that are impossible to comprehend, we neglect to see that the attitudes motivating Dylann Roof are not isolated to one sick individual. There is a systemic problem we have refused to address that creates an environment in which someone like Dylann Storm Roof can operate.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">
As we decry Roof's donning of racist flags from Apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia, we ignore the fact that the Confederate flag - a treasonous symbol harking back to a time when blacks were owned as property - <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/confederate-flag-flying-south-carolina-capitol-grounds-provokes/story?id=31863705" target="_blank">flies every day at the South Carolina State House</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">
As we bemoan the senseless act of violence, made possible by Storm's access to guns, we brush aside the fact that the morning paper in Charleston with the headline "Church attack kills 9" also contained an ad for a local gun shop, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/one-photo-perfectly-captures-the-insanity-of-americas-relationship-with-guns/" target="_blank">inviting local ladies to come and enjoy some shooting</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">
We try to ignore our past, despite the fact that there are not-so-subtle signs of it all over the country, particularly in South Carolina. Very few would look back on legalized segregation in this country fondly, but one of them is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Strom_Thurmond" target="_blank">immortalized with a statue in Columbia, South Carolina</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.7999992370605px;">
We ask ourselves why things like this happen, but days later we go back to "normal" A normal where the Confederate flag will still be flown at the SC State House. A normal where the ATP Gun Shop and Range will still be advertising their deadly wares. A normal where, eventually, this will happen again. Until we take a good, long look in the mirror and try to figure out how to fix the entire system we will continue to repeat history, to horrific results.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-47794428353343866602015-01-21T22:09:00.003-05:002015-11-15T20:28:18.667-05:00DOJ Not Bringing Civil Rights Charges in Michael Brown Case<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM7DWgO5OkQdYpBtV4XaNyXjL7zcVfv10fwkfN4kh1KCDo41XzOePr4YnbE_f9ILYZdfJG7cvHMVbtGSRMj-_VcriXtPlBezZ32jLO_1nv4Yg81MTJpQteNBASA4DsSStff6VRCCKlV2Io/s1600/s-ERIC-HOLDER-AP-PHONE-RECORDS-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM7DWgO5OkQdYpBtV4XaNyXjL7zcVfv10fwkfN4kh1KCDo41XzOePr4YnbE_f9ILYZdfJG7cvHMVbtGSRMj-_VcriXtPlBezZ32jLO_1nv4Yg81MTJpQteNBASA4DsSStff6VRCCKlV2Io/s1600/s-ERIC-HOLDER-AP-PHONE-RECORDS-large.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Attorney General Eric Holder (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/eric-holder-ap-phone-records_n_3273592.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
After no indictment was handed down in Missouri in the case of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown, many people turned to Washington. A hope existed that <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-eric-holder-ferguson-recalls-angry-police-encounters/story?id=25060969" target="_blank">Attorney General Eric Holder's comments</a> about his own experience with America's police would help guide the Department of Justice toward bringing civil rights charges against Wilson. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0" target="_blank">This was misguided for many reasons</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The most glaring problem with thinking this was a possibility was the case of Trayvon Martin. The circumstances following Martin's death at the hands of overzealous neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman could be seen as more favorable for a civil rights charge, especially <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/" target="_blank">considering that Zimmerman was not a police officer</a>.<br />
<br />
Eric Holder's Department of Justice, however, did not bring charges against Zimmerman, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0" target="_blank">citing insufficient evidence</a>. If the DOJ decided not to pursue a case against Zimmerman, there was little doubt that Wilson's case would be any different.<br />
<br />
Looking even beyond the homicides of young black men in America, Eric Holder has promoted extrajudicial killings overseas of American citizens. His Department of Justice <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/us/justice-department-found-it-lawful-to-target-anwar-al-awlaki.html" target="_blank">advocated for the killing</a> of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim cleric living in Yemen who was accused of aiding terrorism against the United States. Moves like that <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2010/08/anwar-al-awlaki-assassination-would-be.html" target="_blank">erode our protections as citizens</a> against overzealous American state actors, the very same charge levied by many towards Darren Wilson.<br />
<br />
Eric Holder is not a savior, in fact his time as Attorney General has been <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2013/05/attorney-general-eric-holder-must-go.html" target="_blank">marred by statements and actions</a> that diminish American justice rather than uphold and strengthen it. Holder leads the United States Department of Justice, the very embodiment of the system that many rail against during protests against police brutality. Holder may be able to verbalize the concerns many in America have about our country's policing, but that does not mean he will act against it.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-38997600184745502052015-01-10T12:26:00.000-05:002015-01-21T22:10:42.385-05:00#JeSuisCharlie is About Freedom of Speech, Not Its Content<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXAdO8L68JZYYGkRwfQGTHZQd24yNIpEarlgmLI5UcgHELFjyLZfIJ8dLGtAaHDz_F0rxqe-b1bQ8mpjk1jwWIdQ_Hi-Bt8cDwU2Afxz8znvM8Wn8Q0xYUEgydO2D2fbWrQ9M4SdAX3fat/s1600/150107165403-je-suis-charlie-translations-super-169.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXAdO8L68JZYYGkRwfQGTHZQd24yNIpEarlgmLI5UcgHELFjyLZfIJ8dLGtAaHDz_F0rxqe-b1bQ8mpjk1jwWIdQ_Hi-Bt8cDwU2Afxz8znvM8Wn8Q0xYUEgydO2D2fbWrQ9M4SdAX3fat/s1600/150107165403-je-suis-charlie-translations-super-169.jpeg" height="225" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A collection of "I Am Charlie" sayings in various languages (<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/07/world/social-media-jesuischarlie/" target="_blank">CNN</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A few days out from the terror attack at Charlie Hebdo in response to that magazine's satirical cartoons, we've seen the emergence of the Hot Take express based on the social media movement around #JeSuisCharlie. Translated from French, the hashtag means "I Am Charlie" and was posted as a sign of solidarity with both the victims of the attack and freedom of expression.<br />
<br />
That didn't seem to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=1" target="_blank">sit right</a> with <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/charlie-hebdo-gouaillesatireislamjournalism.html" target="_blank">some people</a>. Rather than seeing the movement for what it is - a gesture of support for the right to publish whatever one wants - some saw it as support of the content of Charlie Hebdo. Simply put, that's a shortsighted view of those who came out in support of Charlie Hebdo after their staff was brutally murdered for publishing uncouth cartoons.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Free speech should be content-blind. Not all ideas hold the same weight in the marketplace of ideas (nor should they), but they all share the same exact right to be expressed. Good ideas do not hold more right of expression as the worst ideas that are put out there.<br />
<br />
That's why true freedom of speech advocates fight for the right of anyone and everyone to express themselves. Does that mean that these advocates agree with the particular expression? Hardly.<br />
<br />
In fact, if we're being honest, some of the stuff that Charlie Hebdo put out was really just put out for shock value; it wasn't funny (at least to me) nor did it necessarily raise political or social discourse. But to say that we don't need to fight for that kind of expression is wrongheaded in a very dangerous way.<br />
<br />
The moment we begin assigning different levels of freedom to different ideas, we are beginning a journey down a rabbit hole in which no free society belongs. Not all ideas are created equal, but their freedom to be expressed ought to be. I don't stand for the content that Charlie Hebdo put out, I stand for their inalienable right to publish it. That is #JeSuisCharlie.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com279tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-87431559196564789722015-01-07T20:22:00.000-05:002015-01-10T19:16:24.534-05:00Media Should Not Help Stifle Freedom of Expression<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0t4mSrX-08gxbbMx-0e_1heUxj03DoKJNaOURQumW_675fkVLdMVn3lZAKn4OSZHP-s7YJQJPvq7zrnAiIHGOIHFlL6LsM-W7nqNd-9ZZ0uv3P2MGOkCaqV1Jz7Y0Jaq4ZeXrOPMEfjPJ/s1600/Paris+we+are+not+afraid.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0t4mSrX-08gxbbMx-0e_1heUxj03DoKJNaOURQumW_675fkVLdMVn3lZAKn4OSZHP-s7YJQJPvq7zrnAiIHGOIHFlL6LsM-W7nqNd-9ZZ0uv3P2MGOkCaqV1Jz7Y0Jaq4ZeXrOPMEfjPJ/s1600/Paris+we+are+not+afraid.jpg" height="262" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Parisians coming together after Tuesday's terrorist attack (<a href="https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/552946479489638400" target="_blank">Ian Bremmer's Twitter</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<div>
There are no words that can sum up the evil visited upon the 12 victims in Paris today, sparked by satirical cartoons lampooning Islam. Those who use violence against innocents to try to prove a point simply lack the intelligence and rational thought to achieve their ends any other way.<br />
<br /></div>
And so it is with the these terrorists. They were so offended (on behalf of a supposedly omnipotent and all-powerful being) that they decided to kill the people responsible for publishing a cartoon and anyone who got in their way. The response throughout the day once the news became widespread is yet more evidence that the pen can and will outlast the sword.<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="more"></a><br />
<a name='more'></a>There are some media outlets, however, who refuse to show the cartoon out of some kind of deference to those so misguided and simple-minded that they would take up arms against authors of a cartoon. <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/some-outlets-are-censoring-charlie-hebdos-satirical-cartoons#.ju8wnlr06" target="_blank">These outlets include</a> The Telegraph in Britain, the New York Daily News, the Associated Press, CNN, and NBC. To be honest, the overused cliche of "the terrorists won" is apt here. The Charlie Hebdo offices were attacked in a show of force against free expression and freedom of the press. The response ought to be a flood of this kind of expression, not its reduction.</div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUuJwZ0zn-IPFBVDaFdJ3yEMgGSnP9x99r1TOlKTCJzsLnvtqKnyFLFA5zLCnOO1J6haoyFlwOeFjk2MKf1iZgtv25nOrRGXIaws5P2z8fsD7KsRV6G15XYHllYvHCjhRVzS3fq0HvzxvA/s1600/enhanced-28134-1420652729-9.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUuJwZ0zn-IPFBVDaFdJ3yEMgGSnP9x99r1TOlKTCJzsLnvtqKnyFLFA5zLCnOO1J6haoyFlwOeFjk2MKf1iZgtv25nOrRGXIaws5P2z8fsD7KsRV6G15XYHllYvHCjhRVzS3fq0HvzxvA/s1600/enhanced-28134-1420652729-9.jpg" height="200" width="153" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One Charlie Hedbo cover<br />
that some outlets censored<br />
(<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/some-outlets-are-censoring-charlie-hebdos-satirical-cartoons#.ju8wnlr06" target="_blank">Buzzfeed</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Here's the thing about religious choices and laws: follow them if you feel so obliged, but under no circumstances do people who do not subscribe to your beliefs need to follow them. If someone wants to eat pork, they should be allowed to no matter what the Talmud says. If someone feels like publishing a picture of a prophet, they should do it regardless of the hadith. For those who believe in civil rights, they fight for marriage equality no matter what the Vatican thinks. The great thing about freedom is that it goes both ways: You're free to follow whatever religious guidelines you choose; others are free to follow none of them.<br />
<br />
When we begin caving like this to the will of others's personal beliefs, we begin to erode the very principles that millions of people perished throughout history helping to progress us as a species. We begin to prevent others from expressing their freedom in deference to a vague notion of "offensiveness" for others. This is not acceptable in a society that declares itself free.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
There are two quotes with which I want to end this post. The first is from one of today's victims, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/report-shots-fired-at-headquarters-of-satirical-magazine-in-paris-2015-1" target="_blank">Charlie Hedbo editor Stéphane Charbonnier</a>, quoting Zapata when asked whether he fears retaliation; "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."<br />
<br />
The other comes from satirical gold mine <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/it-sadly-unclear-whether-this-article-will-put,37715/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic%3A1%3ADefault" target="_blank">The Onion in their all-too-real article</a> on the tragedy in Paris today: "At press time, although the consequences of this article are reportedly still unclear and actual human lives may hang in the balance, sources confirmed that the best thing to do—really the only thing to do—is to simply put it out there and just hope that it does some good."</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-28584049470516859682014-12-21T16:36:00.000-05:002015-01-07T20:46:01.020-05:00A Time to Come Together, Not Apart<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGd269ItoCEAN3C_rr-6CCFbaDxq4phseBJ9Fcr9QIXBUigUjzOdUDv8ZyXOOB74X1bt8f9RvFCJbKNFrmM4CBH8kvGkxVwIb-5rykuyqjyRQ17UgruwOKVUu1KckvqiDSj9ZWBKZCXeCY/s1600/B5YbBj1CUAA-piN.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGd269ItoCEAN3C_rr-6CCFbaDxq4phseBJ9Fcr9QIXBUigUjzOdUDv8ZyXOOB74X1bt8f9RvFCJbKNFrmM4CBH8kvGkxVwIb-5rykuyqjyRQ17UgruwOKVUu1KckvqiDSj9ZWBKZCXeCY/s1600/B5YbBj1CUAA-piN.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A memorial for PO Liu and PO Ramos in Brooklyn. (<a href="https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/546741252021297155/photo/1">Source</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyregion/police-combing-through-shooting-suspects-arrest-history-and-violent-day.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">Last night's assassination</a> of Police Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos was a tragedy. There is no other way to describe it. Two men simply doing their job gunned down in cold blood as they sat in their cruiser. The killer furthered his cowardly act by turning the gun on himself, escaping the responsibility of answering for his actions. Any sane individual mourns with the city of New York and the NYPD over this senseless tragedy.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
A moment like this should unite a city that has already seen such unrest the past few weeks. Unfortunately, pundits, politicians and others who gain from division have jumped on the opportunity to politicize this. Long Island Congressman Peter King (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Support_for_the_IRA">who has previously supported cop-killers</a>) has used this tragedy to point the finger at <span style="background-color: white;">people</span> like Bill de Blasio and President Barack Obama for their "<a href="https://www.facebook.com/reppeteking/posts/10152985928243417">cop bashing</a>," suggesting some kind of link between yesterday's killer and the president of the United States.</div>
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President Pat Lynch has skipped all of the subtleties that politicians like King have woven into their statements. He directly blames Bill De Blasio, saying the New York mayor has "<a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/20/police-unions-others-blast-de-blasio-after-shooting-deaths-of-2-nypd-cops/">blood on his hands</a>."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just to be clear: all blame for this tragedy lies with the coward who pulled the trigger. He is the only individual with blood on his hands. Not the mayor, not the peaceful protestors, and certainly not the <span style="background-color: white;">president.</span> To suggest otherwise is not only disingenuous, but dangerous in that it removes the onus of responsibility from the real killer and places it on people who had nothing to do with it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When Eric Garner's killer <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-chokehold-death-grand-jury-votes-not-to-charge-cop-in-eric-garner-case/">received a "no bill"</a> from the Staten Island grand jury, thousands of New Yorkers peacefully took to the streets to protest (full disclosure: I was one of them). They weren't protesting individual officers, they weren't calling for violence against any member of the NYPD. Instead, they were calling for justice. They were asking the system to do its job and prosecute wrongdoing. They were acknowledging the sad truth that there are two different systems in this country depending on your skin color. They were not calling for retribution - violence only begets violence. Calling for reforms in how we police communities is not even in the same stratosphere as calling for violence against those who police our communities. In fact, the latter directly contradicts the former.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which is why those marching weeks ago should be just as outraged at this cold-blooded act. This heinous act was not just an attack on the NYPD, but an attack on the entire city. The mourning is not - and should not - be confined to the NYPD. I would urge all city residents who felt the urge to protest the past few weeks to <a href="http://7online.com/news/brooklyn-candlelight-vigil-set-for-6-pm-for-slain-nypd-officers/444963/">attend tonight's 6pm candlelight vigil</a> for Police Officers Liu and Ramos. No matter on which side of the thin blue line violences occurs - it should be loudly denounced and repudiated.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I also urge people to take a step back from the rhetoric and don't buy into those people who use situations like these to score political points. The reality is that 95% of people want to find a middle ground. They want to see peace and a system that works for everybody. Those other 5% - those on either side of every issue who <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/20/third-suspect-arrested-in-protest-attack-on-nypd-lieutenants/">use peaceful protests to assault police officers</a> or <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/20/police-unions-others-blast-de-blasio-after-shooting-deaths-of-2-nypd-cops/">blame everyone but the actual killer after a tragedy</a> - they thrive on these kinds of divisions. Don't let them. This is a time to come together, not apart.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-49149937030903861762014-03-18T22:44:00.000-04:002015-01-10T22:29:58.402-05:00Jake Tapper's Defensiveness Highlights Cable News Shortcomings<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5mEgQE7_WydVY6rsAy8PA4dBJIrm-5YSBih6NVI8qNlSfqGfJz_U2EH_4SKgBqQB131RpgvRhTZGflgwIgculAwa-TlALvhjeupavKoFOGKaiN-A-rxDTLHMeA4YBieXHBRihDaUqvDmC/s1600/Screen+shot+2014-03-18+at+10.47.33+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5mEgQE7_WydVY6rsAy8PA4dBJIrm-5YSBih6NVI8qNlSfqGfJz_U2EH_4SKgBqQB131RpgvRhTZGflgwIgculAwa-TlALvhjeupavKoFOGKaiN-A-rxDTLHMeA4YBieXHBRihDaUqvDmC/s1600/Screen+shot+2014-03-18+at+10.47.33+PM.png" height="182" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This evening a friend of the blog called out CNN The Lead reporter Jake Tapper, on a point about terrorists killing other Muslims in the name of Islam. The following was the last paragraph in <a href="http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/18/counter-terrorism-expert-people-on-jihadist-websites-discussing-missing-plane/">a blog post</a> on The Lead's blog about online terrorist chatter regarding Malaysia Airlines Flight 370:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"But there's been a very strong push back from some of these jihadist forums that there were Muslims on board, an so taking down an airplane that killed Muslims was at its core an act not supported by Islam," said Jones.</blockquote>
This is a classic bullshit argument by terrorist organizations like Al Qaida, who claim that killing co-religionists goes against Islam and, thus, against their murderous dogma. It is well known that Al Qaida actually murders more Muslims than any other group of people in their terrorist acts, which Nihar called out to Tapper.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="storify">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="no" height="750" src="//storify.com/RealMattKane/tapper-vs-shah-round-1/embed" width="100%"></iframe><script src="//storify.com/RealMattKane/tapper-vs-shah-round-1.js"></script><noscript>[<a href="//storify.com/RealMattKane/tapper-vs-shah-round-1" target="_blank">View the story "Tapper vs Shah, Round 1" on Storify</a>]</noscript><br />
<br />
Tapper's last comment, insinuating that Nihar was uninformed because he did not watch CNN clips online, led me to jump in because that claim is preposterous (we'll get into why in a minute).<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="storify">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="no" height="750" src="//storify.com/RealMattKane/kane-and-shah-vs-tapper-round-2/embed" width="100%"></iframe><script src="//storify.com/RealMattKane/kane-and-shah-vs-tapper-round-2.js"></script><noscript>[<a href="//storify.com/RealMattKane/kane-and-shah-vs-tapper-round-2" target="_blank">View the story "Kane & Shah vs. Tapper, Round 2" on Storify</a>]</noscript><br />
<br />
The fact that Tapper thinks he didn't take a shot when he told Nihar that informed people have time to watch video is either him being willfully ignorant or blatantly backtracking (or both). But that's beside the point.<br />
<br />
The Lead published a blog post that Nihar called out, to which Tapper said it wasn't the full story. It looks like it was meant as a teaser to watch the CNN clip. Which begs the question, should blog posts like the one The Lead posted be standalone pieces of journalism, or more like native previews to a video that has a lucrative ad before it?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
This makes sense financially - and the argument that this is how digital outlets need to make their money is valid. But is it good <i>journalism</i>? Probably not.</div>
<div class="storify">
<br /></div>
<div class="storify">
And Nihar's point of delivering news in a timely manner is an important one - after sitting through an ad, the viewer needs to watch a video that's 3:21 long to get the info about Islamic terrorists killing other Muslims. That's fine for those with the time, but Nihar proved that information can be delivered much faster with the same accuracy by simply tweeting at Tapper to begin with.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to my bigger point. When CNN launched in 1980, it was revolutionary. It was the only channel devoted solely to the news, which meant you didn't have to wait for the paper to come out or for the regularly scheduled news broadcasts on other, non-100% news channels.<br />
<br />
But that was 34 years ago, and in that time we've seen the pitfalls of trying to fill 24 hours of news programming. A move towards more sensational news reporting as more channels entered the field led to an overall decline in the news we consume.<br />
<br />
Looking just at the Malaysia Airlines fiasco, it's been <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/missing-malaysian-plane-brings-out-the-worst-in-the-media/#ooid=F1eHU2bDp0wiy7is2GIpw67HarDCtTM7" target="_blank">a lot of speculation about the flight</a>, including Don Lemon <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/missing-malaysian-plane-brings-out-the-worst-in-the-media/" target="_blank">wondering if God did something</a> to the plane outside of our understanding, and <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/03/15/seems-legit-more-cnn-presenters-get-to-play-with-toy-plane/" target="_blank">a lot of playing with toys on air</a>. <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2013/04/a-media-out-of-control.html" target="_blank">This is not the first time I've pointed something out like this</a> (namely because it is not the first time the issue has been at the forefront.) Plus, CNN employs Nancy Grace.<br />
<br />
So in summation, Jake Tapper's wrong that more informed people watch CNN as opposed to read blogs or other online outlets. Sure, you have your InfoWars and other junk "news" sites, but when it comes to proper reporting, sticking with outlets like the New York Times or major broadcast networks will get you more accurate information. You may not get it <i>as</i> quickly, but with outlets like Twitter the networks and legacy outlets play on a similar level in breaking (accurate) news.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-24889289462224139482013-05-23T22:54:00.000-04:002015-01-07T20:51:32.972-05:00Attorney General Eric Holder Must Go<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOw6KVA0N1VV1aW-LjKTXA6i6nZd-w3kGkzRH91vsOGEQcFjkjpU4NqXvX85CZY1fYQl86zb9rJLuH-v9WdDkSN0i8XoXATrMGWsBLjiT0rBI0J_0EwLuUCV5DID7SEQA6L7wW60rmSz1k/s1600/130522-eric-holder-drones-845p.photoblog600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOw6KVA0N1VV1aW-LjKTXA6i6nZd-w3kGkzRH91vsOGEQcFjkjpU4NqXvX85CZY1fYQl86zb9rJLuH-v9WdDkSN0i8XoXATrMGWsBLjiT0rBI0J_0EwLuUCV5DID7SEQA6L7wW60rmSz1k/s640/130522-eric-holder-drones-845p.photoblog600.jpg" height="288" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Attorney General Eric Holder (Source: <a href="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-private-emails-official-says?lite">NBC News</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In what has proven an incredibly disappointing tenure by Attorney General Eric Holder, in which he, among other things, <a href="http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1203051.html">claimed that "due process" was not "judicial process,"</a> the last straw may have (hopefully) just seen the light of day. NBC News is reporting that <a href="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-private-emails-official-says?lite">Holder personally approved</a> the secret seizure of Fox News reporter James Rosen's private emails.<br />
<br />
Unlike the AP case, where Holder has stated that he <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/more-mystery-over-ap-subpoenas-process-at-justice-164202.html">recused himself</a> because he had been interviewed by the FBI for the investigation, this Fox News case shows how far the Obama administration will go in its quest to control information. That the administration went beyond finding the source of the leak, which was intelligence analyst Stephen Kim, and tracked Rosen's movements to of the State Department to prove he was meeting with Kim.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>According to NBC, an affidavit in support of the search warrants to Google for Rosen's Gmail account<br />
said that the reporter had asked Kim for sensitive information. <a href="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-private-emails-official-says?lite">The report went on</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Reporter did so by employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim's vanity and ego,” it continued. “Much like an intelligence officer would run a clandestine intelligence source, the Reporter instructed Mr. Kim on a covert communications plan that involved" emails from his gmail account.</blockquote>
In other words, Rosen was doing his job, which earned him FBI surveillance and federal search warrants. Kim is currently under indictment for allegedly leaking classified information about how North Korea would respond to UN sanctions. While federal prosecutors were aiming at making Rosen a co-conspirator of Kim's, Rosen will not be charged in the incident.<br />
<br />
Obama pledged on Thursday that he will continue to seek out those who leak classified information, but that reporters should not be the foci of these kinds of investigations. Obama also said that Holder shares this sentiment. Either Obama is lying to the American public, or Holder is lying to him.<br />
<br />
I don't think I need to argue why FBI surveillance and secret search warrants are intimidating to a journalist simply trying to do his job. I also don't need to argue that intimidating journalists from doing their job would inhibit the freedom of the press, a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. The fact that Holder approved this kind of intimidating, constitution-violating behavior is disturbing and should lead to his resignation. The question is, how long will he try to hang on to the position as the nation's top law enforcement officer, and how long will Obama allow him to remain there?</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-39840139571225048802013-05-14T08:30:00.000-04:002015-01-07T20:50:28.827-05:00Could the Tsarnaev Brothers Have Been Stopped?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVvnVzOHlkghoFwmJ0vETi8c5XHBYaUEy5xGPyCQ6VZAvV68fAvygblML1Sz3qvtcIjDozi1QuLNgVgFJQMJUGtrGY2AyoDMxKCRCx7zwIgTmqPO-K6PHfFfzWtUzUR5URHKyiajRYxWCM/s1600/tamerlan-and-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVvnVzOHlkghoFwmJ0vETi8c5XHBYaUEy5xGPyCQ6VZAvV68fAvygblML1Sz3qvtcIjDozi1QuLNgVgFJQMJUGtrGY2AyoDMxKCRCx7zwIgTmqPO-K6PHfFfzWtUzUR5URHKyiajRYxWCM/s400/tamerlan-and-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-4.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tamerlan Tsarnaev (l) and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Source: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/report-tamerlan-tsarnaev-triple-murder-link-2013-5">Business Insider</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
When the news came out shortly after the marathon bombings that Moscow had <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?hp">contacted Washington about Tamerlan Tsarnaev's 2011 trip to the Caucasus region in Russia</a>, I wanted to wait for more information to surface because of the <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/08/inside-chechnya-putins-reign-terror">very tense history between Chechnya and Moscow</a>. Vladimir Putin's <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/22/finally-we-know-about-moscow-bombings/?pagination=false">history with Chechen separatists</a> is long and incredibly complex, to say the least. All of this is a large grain of salt when it comes to Russian intelligence on any Caucasus separatist movement and alleged members.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On top of this, the separatist movements found in the North Caucasus region of Russia have one enemy in their eyes: Russia. It makes no sense, <a href="http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/19/chechnya_s_war_just_arrived_in_the_united_states">as some were quick to rush to postulate</a> in the aftermath of the Marathon Bombings, that the Chechen separatist movement would attack American targets. There's a litany of reasons why this is true, but the main is that it makes no sense to attack a country who is usually at diplomatic odds with the country you view as your sworn enemy. It'd be like Puerto Rico attacking Saudi Arabia because they want to be independent from the United States.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
For the reasons stated above, I held back on lamenting the lack of action following a Russian-initiated tip on a possible Chechen-born extremist. As more information comes out on the law enforcement intelligence gathering and communication prior to April 15, 2013, however, it appears that there were multiple failures of various law enforcement agencies that could have prevented the bombings from occurring.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first is the revelation that the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/boston-police-werent-told-fbi-got-warning-on-tsarnaev.html?_r=0">FBI did not share with Boston PD</a> the tip that they received about the older Tsarnaev brother, nor the conclusion of the federal investigation into him. There are two particular worrying aspects about this. The first is that after 9/11, one cited intelligence failure was the absence of information sharing between agencies. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/24/politics/boston-fbi-russia">Despite assertions to do better in this realm</a>, it looks like a lack of interdepartmental communication was a factor in this attack.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The second disturbing aspect is that the FBI and Boston PD have already undertaken extensive information sharing before and should have the infrastructure in place for something like this. During the Occupy protests in Boston, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/fbi_kept_russian_warning_on_tsarnaev_from_boston_police/singleton/">there was daily communication and intel sharing</a> between not only the FBI and Boston PD, but private sector security as well. If this kind of extensive collaboration can occur for peaceful protesting in tents, I would hope it would apply to those who wish to commit violent acts of terrorism.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now there are reports that the Tsarnaev brothers have become suspects in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Waltham_murders">unsolved triple murder in</a> Waltham, MA of Brendan Mess, Erik Weissman and Raphael Teken. Tamerlan Tsarnaev <a href="http://waltham.patch.com/articles/did-waltham-murder-victim-know-marathon-bomber">had described Mess as his "best friend"</a> to the owner of the gym where he worked out. According to ABC's law enforcement sources, forensic hits are contributing to "mounting evidence" that both Tamerlan and Dhokhar Tsarnaev are involved in the gruesome triple homicide back in September 2011.</div>
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXy_87DieHfuOoUN_R0Tn3iCW3VJLG1wqCwmfPvCJUjapznD90KiBJ5l8a7zYGeEiTLj69InRSghJ4blDm1Be9WUvS0gu1gBdVIP6-f8RhUF6PLcsPyUsyHog0IvyxwGz9L424ndnzTpcI/s1600/09142011_14waltham_photo1-8040147.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXy_87DieHfuOoUN_R0Tn3iCW3VJLG1wqCwmfPvCJUjapznD90KiBJ5l8a7zYGeEiTLj69InRSghJ4blDm1Be9WUvS0gu1gBdVIP6-f8RhUF6PLcsPyUsyHog0IvyxwGz9L424ndnzTpcI/s400/09142011_14waltham_photo1-8040147.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The scene of the Waltham murders, September 2011 (Source: <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/22/police-probe-possible-link-between-marathon-bomber-and-unsolved-triple-homicide-waltham/R9yUVyK2tVXxcoPEj2yvAP/story.html">Boston Globe</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Had the FBI shared their investigation with Boston PD, would that have spurred interest in the Tsarnaevs for the Waltham murders? It likely would have been an angle at least discussed, given Tamerlan's association with Mess and his odd behavior following the murders (apparently Tamerlan did not attend the funeral for Mess, his self-described "best friend.") There's no word whether Tamerlan was ever questioned as a witness or otherwise for the murders. The Middlesex DA spokeswoman declined to comment for this post as to law enforcement's contact with Tamerlan after the murders.</div>
<div>
<br />
Whether or not either Tsarnaev was involved in the Waltham murders, all of this goes to a larger point. We as a country <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act">have given up a few liberties</a> since that sunny Tuesday morning in September 2001 in the name of safety against terrorists who want to do us harm. The efficacy of these liberty rollbacks in the name of security, however, is up for debate. The marathon bombings was the first time that a terrorist had successfully bombed a soft target on American soil since 9/11. Others who have slipped through the cracks (<a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2009/12/failed-christmas-day-bombing-prompts.html">the underwear bomber</a>, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/04/national/main6459360.shtml">the Times Square bomber</a>) could have inflicted serious damage, but were too inept.<br />
<br />
Other terrorist "<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515">plots</a>" that have been "<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-7103284.html">prevented</a>" by federal law enforcement were really just thinly veiled entrapments that would probably have never materialized without FBI encouragement. Which begs the question, if actual attacks like the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, and now the marathon bombings are occurring and essentially made-up plots are the only things being prevented with the PATRIOT Act and federal intelligence gathering, what is the point? Why are we giving up all of these liberties if, as NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly points out, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nypd-ray-kelly-boston-marathon-bombings-173922894.html">these kinds of attacks are essentially inevitable and the fact that New York hasn't been attacked again is partly due to "sheer luck"</a>? Are we really safer with these tactics in place?<br />
<br />
All in all, there were multiple points at which the FBI and local PD could have collaborated to scrutinize the Tsarnaev brothers, specifically Tamerlan. Just because the FBI did not dig up anything on Tamerlan does not mean that local PD would have come to the same conclusion. It even could have renewed interested in the Waltham murders and Tamerlan's possible connection. If Tamerlan did commit the murders, or had something to do with them, he could have been behind bars or in custody on April 15, 2013. The real question is how we respond to this. Do we tighten up law enforcement communication and procedure, or pass more liberty-encroaching legislation while emotions are still high?</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-40485354558903448332013-05-07T21:23:00.000-04:002015-01-07T20:51:42.431-05:00Why Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Should Be Tried in Criminal Court in the United States<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwnlmoriAhYWRH7frT3ZzaIn88JcNeEZAApJaMTlSMxhSB1COwV5T7Z4c8lKpc8byYaWQchz14IS5XTGXrYBYwUQZUmirRpo06vTWphS07gCEh0tY-Fx2-DeqdUccUISt0QP8tkmnZVI4e/s1600/D.+Tsarnaev.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwnlmoriAhYWRH7frT3ZzaIn88JcNeEZAApJaMTlSMxhSB1COwV5T7Z4c8lKpc8byYaWQchz14IS5XTGXrYBYwUQZUmirRpo06vTWphS07gCEh0tY-Fx2-DeqdUccUISt0QP8tkmnZVI4e/s640/D.+Tsarnaev.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Source: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/19/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-bombing/2095953/">USA Today</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a United States citizen who committed crimes on American soil. This is the beginning and the end of the conversation.<br />
<br />
Honestly, I was more shocked than I should have been that people would call to try the surviving terrorist from the marathon bombings as <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/20/graham_mccain_hold_boston_suspect_as_enemy_combatant/">an enemy combatant</a>. I knew some people would say it; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed a heinous crime against innocent civilians and this obviously engenders very strong emotions. But there is a very important reason why Tsarnaev should be tried in criminal court in the U.S.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a United States citizen who committed crimes on American soil. This is the beginning and the end of the conversation.<br />
<br />
The fact that Tsarnaev is a naturalized citizen does not matter unless he is trying to run for president. American citizens are American citizens; there are no levels of citizenship in this country. Look at <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">the Fourteenth Amendment</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.</blockquote>
There is no lesser or superior citizen under the law, and the same applies here. Did Dzhokhar Tsarnaev commit horrendous crimes here in America? It certainly seems that way, but the second his rights are stripped because he is not a <i>jus soli</i> citizen our justice system has failed before it even has a chance to work.<br />
<br />
There are numerous additional, legitimate arguments that have been made much more eloquently than I could have done. There's the slippery slope argument, or the fact that we're a nation of laws and that is one of the main differentiators between us and terrorists. But these arguments don't even matter. Why?<br />
<br />
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is United States citizen who committed crimes on American soil. This is the beginning and the end of the conversation.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-26714123198464745502013-04-30T21:05:00.000-04:002015-01-07T20:52:17.319-05:00Publishing Photos of Collateral Damage<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJN36ll8muvDjptJxWOV02GEf2aswaBh1MvDAP6Lb-ZttdhLtoOF1Zh15D12qPtzGWX-Htixj_wrNDzPr9B0pZzMseaA79hKgv2k5GZSGJ8rYjw45h9rp0ZhTiFyHUAmlpKf1xW_9a4pfO/s1600/A-Reaper-drone-as-used-by-001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJN36ll8muvDjptJxWOV02GEf2aswaBh1MvDAP6Lb-ZttdhLtoOF1Zh15D12qPtzGWX-Htixj_wrNDzPr9B0pZzMseaA79hKgv2k5GZSGJ8rYjw45h9rp0ZhTiFyHUAmlpKf1xW_9a4pfO/s640/A-Reaper-drone-as-used-by-001.jpg" height="240" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Reaper drone (Source: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/25/obama-drone-warfare-rulebook">The Guardian</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Last week someone left a comment on one of The Second Age's <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Second-Age/106049872750870">Facebook page</a> posts about <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2013/04/graphic-photos-to-publish-or-not-to.html">publishing graphic photographs</a> like those taken at the Boston Marathon bombing. My argument in the post about showing the world the horror of that day and other tragedies was that it would allow the true devastation that occurred to be realized by the public. I said that editing photos or not releasing photos because they may be too graphic runs the risk of toning down the public response to the horror.<br />
<br />
The comment left made a valid point: "Only if they also publish photos of 'collateral damage' from Predator Drones. Fair and balanced." [<i>Quick editorial note: Because the comment was left on my personal Facebook page, I'm not going to link directly to it in case the commenter did not want his statement put up on the blog.</i>] I agree that publishing photos of the human toll that the ever-expanding drone war that the Obama administration has undertaken would be a service to the public to help people understand on a visceral level exactly what we are doing in non-war zones in sovereign countries.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>This got me thinking, though: would it make a difference? <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2013/04/collateral-damage.html">Collateral damage</a>, which was the title of the post on the failed gun background check vote, is a military term used to designate more-or-less accidental death and destruction (usually of non-combatant targets) in the process of combat. While the Obama administration has tried to say that injury and death to civilians under the drone program is minimal, a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes">study conducted last year by Stanford and NYU</a> showed that almost 1,000 civilians have been killed under the program, including 176 children. The report went on to say that the strikes do more harm to American interests than good.<br />
<br />
Which begs the question: if graphic photos from drone strikes were published, showing limbless civilians and dead children, would public perception about the program change? Or would people still defend the program, saying the civilian casualties are worth it to kill high-level targets?<br />
<br />
I do not think it would change public perception, and if it did, it would not be enough to stop the program and find a better way to deal with international terrorism. When Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen, <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/03/how-us-concluded-killing-anwar-al-awlaki-was-ok/62928/">was killed by a drone strike</a> along with his 16 year-old son, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs insinuated that the son deserved it, saying he needed "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html">a far more responsible father</a>." I'm not sure that photos of the dead teenager would persuade Gibbs and others like him to reconsider their views if they blame a minor for being put in harms way by their guardian.<br />
<br />
But we do not need to wonder hypotheticals, when only two weeks ago our elected legislative body refused to enact universal background checks for guns that were overwhelmingly supported by the nation's population. The murder of 20 first graders at their school with a legally-purchased firearm could not sway them to vote for something as simple and common-sense as universal background checks. Would publishing the photos of the dead children have changed the minds of some of the cowardly members of Congress who voted against the bill?<br />
<br />
Take this into account: <a href="http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/">Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ)</a> wrote a handwritten letter to the mother of a victim of the Aurora shooting saying that "<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/22/1900031/senator-told-shooting-victims-mother-he-supported-background-checks-then-voted-against-them/?mobile=nc">strengthening background checks is something we agree on</a>." Flake went on to join the minority of senators to vote against the background checks and prevent the bill from going through. When you're dealing with politicians this morally bankrupt, pictures - no matter how disturbing - are not going to sway them.<br />
<br />
So while I agree that photos of victims of any kind of violence - whether inflicted by lone terrorists on behalf of their religion or by someone in Nevada on a computer on behalf of their government - should be allowed to be published to let people gauge their own views, I don't think it would necessarily create a significant shift in public perception. From a historical and photojournalistic point of view I think it is important, but I'm less convinced it would be the key driver in social change <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/14/731205/-The-Face-of-Emmett-Till-UPDATED#">as it sometimes has been</a> in the past.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-17627528184266172812013-04-22T21:55:00.001-04:002017-07-06T09:26:17.489-04:00Graphic Photos: To Publish or Not to Publish?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>Note: This post is about graphic images and prominently displays a graphic image from last Monday's marathon bombing that some media outlets deemed too graphic to fully publish.</i><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2HfbQ8Wbcuqvkk_aTjO_ZNylGpJihxxrN54hQpTk0MhVzNCV2HfOT2265V7RuqRzngXx8NwyWDl3p0pcI3oQn8pOIRT08wSWJM_v0tvzcq-8TUsd3pDhG7SFFvi61b7z75MUeCtahYDYM/s1600/Boston_Marathon_explosions_(8652971845).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2HfbQ8Wbcuqvkk_aTjO_ZNylGpJihxxrN54hQpTk0MhVzNCV2HfOT2265V7RuqRzngXx8NwyWDl3p0pcI3oQn8pOIRT08wSWJM_v0tvzcq-8TUsd3pDhG7SFFvi61b7z75MUeCtahYDYM/s400/Boston_Marathon_explosions_(8652971845).jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The scene after the Boston Marathon bombing (Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Marathon_explosions_(8652971845).jpg">Wikipedia</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A debate has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/business/media/news-media-weigh-use-of-photos-of-carnage.html?hp">popped up recently</a> over the ethics of publishing gruesome photos like those of Marathon Bombing victim Jeff Bauman. Some have said that publishing these photos is in poor taste because of the gore that it subjects its viewers to. The <i>Daily News</i> even went so far as to <a href="http://storify.com/cbccommunity/new-york-paper-alters-photo-of-bloody-boston-after">alter one image of the bloody scene</a> to make it less graphic.<br />
<br />
Before getting into the merits of publishing gut-wrenching photos, it is pretty obvious that the altering of press photographs is inherently wrong. The consensus is you either run the photo or not, but sneakily editing it the way that the <i>Daily News</i> did is never the right thing to do.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
That said, the true debate is whether some photos are so gruesome that they should not be run at all. I feel that it is an editorial decision and arguments can certainly be made either way. If an editor is not comfortable running a photo because he/she feels it is too gory and could disturb some viewers I have no problem with that. They know their audience and should have the authority to make that decision and should not be forced to run a photo with which they are not comfortable. I personally feel, however, that running photos that may make some squeamish has some benefits.<br />
<br />
War is ugly. Terror is ugly. If we edit or self-censor the gruesomeness of human evil such as occurred on Marathon Monday, our reaction may not be analogous to the horror wreaked upon innocent civilians. This is not something that can be swept under the rug by cropping or leaving certain photos on the cutting room floor. Take the following photos of Jeff Bauman side by side:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb_F-YVlIK3rTojvdyuVcSPFp1n4QxpqsbdoJUgOMGoAHn1QVpkYrIKGUCmZ4EzLLbIzPsto-kucd9Tmm4Djt1BM-HS1nnbvONC0HgeJEPDv3J21llWfj7P1W8hE1bU0gqBRCYKruuXK_r/s1600/graphic+comp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="121" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb_F-YVlIK3rTojvdyuVcSPFp1n4QxpqsbdoJUgOMGoAHn1QVpkYrIKGUCmZ4EzLLbIzPsto-kucd9Tmm4Djt1BM-HS1nnbvONC0HgeJEPDv3J21llWfj7P1W8hE1bU0gqBRCYKruuXK_r/s400/graphic+comp.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Sources: Left - <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-19/world/38657323_1_boston-marathon-bag-fbi-officials">Washington Post</a>; Right - <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/04/photos-of-the-boston-marathon-bombing/100495/#img08">The Atlantic</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the photo on the left we see a dazed spectator in a wheelchair in shock at what just happened. He doesn't seem to be fully aware of what is going on, but it may not cross the viewer's mind that Bauman has suffered a devastating life-threatening injury. The photo on the right gives the viewer a completely different reaction than the one on the left. It is visceral and hits the viewer right in the stomach. It also further highlights the heroic actions of the EMT, the woman pushing the wheelchair, and Carlos Arredondo, <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17773869-the-man-in-the-hat-at-boston-marathon-finish-line-carlos-arredondo-didnt-set-out-to-be-hero?lite">the bystander in the cowboy hat</a>. These are the realities of the horror visited upon Boston recently. As you can tell, the <i>Washington Post</i> decided to run the cropped version, while <i>The Atlantic</i> ran the full photo.<br />
<br />
This debate is not new. Back during the Gulf War <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/">Ken Jarecke took a graphic</a> photograph of a burned-up Iraqi solider on the "Highway of Death" and the AP in New York pulled it off the wire, deeming it too graphic. The picture ran in some British outlets, leading to a debate about publishing disturbing images. Ken's feeling was "If I don't make pictures like this, people like my mother will think what they see in war is what they see in movies."<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Portrayals of cold, hard reality have also spurred action in the past. The unforgettable image of an unrecognizable 14 year old <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/14/731205/-The-Face-of-Emmett-Till-UPDATED#">Emmett Till laying in his casket</a>, having been kidnapped and murdered four days earlier, showed the harsh realities of racially-motivated violence in the South and helped lead a push to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957. When asked why she did not have the funeral home do any cosmetic work on her son, Mamie Bradley said, "I wanted the world to see what they did to my baby."<br />
<br />
Our response to events is often driven by a reaction to what we see on television and in the press. If our exposure to these atrocities are toned down, we run the risk of hamstringing our response as well. Words are excellent descriptors, but even the most eloquent descriptions of a tragedy can fall short of a simple photograph.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-89377287111853960112013-04-18T22:33:00.000-04:002013-04-18T22:33:55.163-04:00Collateral Damage<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigYGmRWDyVP30QaoTP00g6v1cDC5nnu5AhTvJOpv0HtLf_M08P_0QshdvTgpWTsIxtuPHL22aJw7W__yCSzB5RCROpjzKGxVXEd6Ya9rGW4n-nvW2tofCAJeAIZfAgCNV3LX2eHsS4bWxU/s1600/mass-shooting-legally.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="512" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigYGmRWDyVP30QaoTP00g6v1cDC5nnu5AhTvJOpv0HtLf_M08P_0QshdvTgpWTsIxtuPHL22aJw7W__yCSzB5RCROpjzKGxVXEd6Ya9rGW4n-nvW2tofCAJeAIZfAgCNV3LX2eHsS4bWxU/s640/mass-shooting-legally.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Source: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/">Washington Post</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As I simmered at <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2013/04/a-media-out-of-control.html">the irresponsibility of Wednesday's ratings-driven media</a>, a much stronger metaphorical punch to the gut was in store: thanks to a minority of Senators in Congress, expanded background checks for the purchase of guns was defeated. Not a limit on clip size or ammunition or assault weapons. A simple background check that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill (while strictly outlawing a national gun registry) was deemed too intrusive on this population's ability to own firearms.<br />
<br />
Never mind that over 90% of Americans <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/04/11/gun-rights-advocate-shreds-gun-polling-on-cnn/">support a background check on gun sales</a>. Never mind that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all">only about 35% of American households</a> even own guns. Never mind that current NRA president Wayne LaPierre <a href="http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/04/background-checks-most-unlikely-supporter-1999-wayne-lapierre/">supported universal background checks</a> back in 1999. All of this does not matter.<br />
<br />
To <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/senate-background-check-bill_n_3104250.html">those 46 senators</a> who voted against the clear will of the American people, who looked gun violence victims and their loved ones in the face and decided to vote against a commonsense measure to help prevent future tragedies, who listened to a vocal minority and lobby in a cowardly dereliction of duty: I am embarrassed for you. There is no rational argument against this.<br />
<br />
If you are a member of the NRA you are part of the problem. Your financial support helps fund the campaigns that help intimidate weak-willed members of Congress into voting against the American people's wishes. This was not a difficult issue; when was the last time this country backed something at a rate of 90%? If you are part of the majority of NRA members who support universal background checks and do not leave the organization, you are no better than the senators who voted against this bill.<br />
<br />
But here's what is the most insulting thing for the American people. Everyone opposed to these measures is saying the same thing: those gun deaths that occur, year in year out, whether by <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map">mass shooting</a> or <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm">homicide or accident</a> are simply collateral damage. They are collateral damage in the name of easy access to guns. They are collateral damage in the name of a perverted reading of the 2nd Amendment. They are collateral damage in the name of irrational paranoia. The victims of Columbine are collateral damage. The victims of Aurora are collateral damage. The 20 dead first graders at Sandy Hook? A necessary sacrifice in the name of "gun rights." <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opinion/a-senate-in-the-gun-lobbys-grip.html?hp&_r=0">Shameful indeed</a>.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-45955179146395290332013-04-17T19:02:00.000-04:002015-01-10T22:34:30.409-05:00A Media Out of Control<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg5fhyphenhyphenOaobTej3JO59PIvyJB4kUH6YOC0GHWJyf_IIF4hE-S2ddUxR6jYJV6MMtK1ExSTWKTF6PHfPNED-U7fzg-mkgaHjDUDcLOx_fQdz8q5jhHeDsKfYYmZMrWToCvz7XWEI9Zn2ZnAL/s1600/slider_688e53080fd545f39c8aa4a3e7dd04fa-688e53080fd545f39c8aa4a3e7dd04fa-0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg5fhyphenhyphenOaobTej3JO59PIvyJB4kUH6YOC0GHWJyf_IIF4hE-S2ddUxR6jYJV6MMtK1ExSTWKTF6PHfPNED-U7fzg-mkgaHjDUDcLOx_fQdz8q5jhHeDsKfYYmZMrWToCvz7XWEI9Zn2ZnAL/s640/slider_688e53080fd545f39c8aa4a3e7dd04fa-688e53080fd545f39c8aa4a3e7dd04fa-0.jpg" height="409" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 19px; text-align: left;">Investigators combed through the scene of one of the blast sites on Wednesday morning. (Source: <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/04/17/boston-medical-center-reports-five-year-old-boy-critical-condition-victims-treated-from-boston-marathon-bombings/UiktKly60y4m8UVHeNu8NP/picture.html">Boston Globe</a>)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If you followed the news reporting on Monday after the bombing on Boylston Street, you would have noticed some <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2013/04/a-quick-word-on-boston.html" target="_blank">very sloppy journalism and wild speculation</a>. While some leeway can be given in times of crisis, the false reports coming out of places like the <a href="http://i.imgur.com/csb65qv.png" target="_blank">New York Post</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/LukeRussert/status/323890994305191936" target="_blank">cables news figures's Twitter feeds</a> went well beyond that leeway.<br />
<br />
A lot of the reaction was "Oh, well, everyone knows the Post is trash" or "Oh, well most of cable news is garbage anyway." I don't necessarily disagree with either of those sentiments, but at the same time they are news outlets and are looked to in times of information demand (the latter certainly more than the former.)<br />
<br />
Today's "reporting" has shown why outlets like the New York Times and the major networks are still the king of clean and polished reports for breaking news. While outlets like <a href="https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/324582239134416897" target="_blank">CNN</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/324583755350147072" target="_blank">AP</a> and <a href="http://imgur.com/ROCkAQB,zIM6UxF" target="_blank">Boston.com</a> were reporting that a suspect was in custody and heading to the courthouse, the Times and the major networks held off on reporting this.<br />
<br />
Just for contrast, I'll write what was confirmed, and then in bold what was extracted from that by some irresponsible media outlets:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/boston-investigation-moves-into-third-day.html?hp" target="_blank">a major breakthrough</a> in the marathon bombing case, as investigators have used Lord & Taylor CCTV to identify a suspect's face in the bombing. <b>Investigators have a face and a name for the marathon bombing suspect and <a href="http://livewire.wcvb.com/Event/117th_Running_of_Boston_Marathon/73402639" target="_blank">an arrest is imminent</a>. The suspect is in custody and is <a href="https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/324589538263584768" target="_blank">heading to the Moakley Courthouse in South Boston</a>.</b></blockquote>
Of course, this led to everyone scrambling to get to the courthouse, amassing outside. Then a bomb threat was relayed to the courthouse, causing a massive evacuation made much more logistically complicated thanks to all of the reporters who were there on false reports of a suspect in custody. It was a microcosm of shoddy journalism complicating legitimate law enforcement activities. A shameful one, at that.<br />
<br />
I lump in all of the cable news networks together. If you're a right winger, you watch Fox News. A leftie? MSNBC is where you head. Stuck in an airport? CNN. The one thing all channels have in common is that they are driven by ratings over journalism and are not legitimate sources of good, hard information.<br />
<br />
I will take this time to call out the Twitter account <a href="https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews" target="_blank">@BuzzFeedNews</a>. Tweets like "<a href="https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/324591777266946048" target="_blank">Police SUV with dark tinted windows just pulled around to the back.</a>" or "<a href="https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/324600930853064705" target="_blank">WCVB: Van back into U.S. Fed. courthouse.</a>" are just asinine. Yes, law enforcement vehicles (including tinted SUVs and vans) can be found outside of a federal courthouse, sometimes moving, on any day of the year. To report this as some kind of significant news event is borderline predatory for pageviews and retweets. One thing it cannot be categorized as is news.<br />
<br />
A friend of mine made a good point today. Assume that CNN or some other outlet was first in getting the scoop of an arrest. Next week, most people would forget who had it first. But everyone will certainly remember when CNN blasted "SUSPECT ARRESTED" on their website. They'll remember CNN anchors excitedly saying that an arrest has been made in the case. People don't forget that kind of misstep.<br />
<br />
So what do we know? Well, for one, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/networks-jump-the-gun-mistakenly-report-that-supreme-court-struck-down-mandate/2012/06/28/gJQAmsa98V_blog.html" target="_blank">CNN learned absolutely nothing</a> from their healthcare misreporting less than a year ago. We learned that for some reason, <a href="https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/324593674707148800" target="_blank">executives still view CNN</a> as an industry-leader in the breaking news category. We learned that <a href="http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/04/relive_it_2.php" target="_blank">Wolf Blitzer and Jon King should not be on air</a> during breaking news events. Unless you're interested in the relatively mundane traffic patterns outside of the Moakley Courthouse, @BuzzFeedNews probably isn't a good feed to follow. And when someone cites "a source," wait until clearer reports come out, preferable with a named official, before taking something and running with it.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-86983628181925671432013-04-16T18:42:00.001-04:002013-04-16T18:45:29.612-04:00Questions Unanswered in Boston<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXpHh2ZIu-0y3LM0T_cxQZxLGKRYaBhuf-dndr6NPNFk3fgnUYrjFLnu5uVIAuzcv3TsH0Gt5-ukHzncH41zHlg4LIobtpOBAOagTy3yETAKI8bW5RTvDVbNRG-00wrafGJtklF5o1hR5J/s1600/166731515.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXpHh2ZIu-0y3LM0T_cxQZxLGKRYaBhuf-dndr6NPNFk3fgnUYrjFLnu5uVIAuzcv3TsH0Gt5-ukHzncH41zHlg4LIobtpOBAOagTy3yETAKI8bW5RTvDVbNRG-00wrafGJtklF5o1hR5J/s400/166731515.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Newspapers for sale on Newbury Street (Source: <a href="http://www.boston.com/sports/2013/04/15/explosions-reported-copley-square/8KGDDLQ1yD3Cll5W8Q65FK/pictures.html?pg=63">Boston.com</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Last night I spent a good portion on GChat, speaking with a friend in Boston talking about how surreal the entire scene was yesterday. We signed off, saying that we will know more tomorrow. When I woke up this morning and watched the various press conferences I realized that would not be the case. A few items would be clarified, but the bombing would still be shrouded in mystery. Who had done this? Why?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think these questions have led to a small debate about what constitutes terrorism. When CNN made <a href="https://twitter.com/RAGreeneCNN/status/323915820591890432">the editorial decision</a> to call what happened in Boston yesterday a terror attack and then <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/04/salivating_over_the_t_word.php">the president did not reciprocate</a> in his evening presser, some wondered why.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Terrorism does not have a proper definition under international law. The common definition of terrorism is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism">an act of violence that meets three criteria</a> (and <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331">the US's definition seems to mimic this</a>):</div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>A violent act intended to create fear or terror;</li>
<li>Is perpetrated to further a religious, ideological and/or political cause;</li>
<li>Deliberately targets or disregards the safety of non-combatants (civilians)</li>
</ol>
<div>
Yesterday's events definitely meet criteria 1 and 3. This was no accident and was meant to shatter the joy of the Massachusetts holiday and to shake this community to its core. Boston will bounce back; as Mayor Menino said <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2013/04/16/2087537/">we are a resilient city</a>, but it would be hard to deny that this event has affected the city.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yesterday's attack also shares a common terroristic trait: the cowardly targeting of civilians. Those gathered yesterday on Boylston to watch the end of the marathon were not state actors in wartime. They were innocent civilians gathered to celebrate the achievements of family and friends and enjoy the beginning of spring in Boston.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The question that many people are anxious to answer relates to motive. Who did this and why? Why bomb innocent civilians? What message was the bomber(s) trying to get across, if any? Until this is answered, we cannot say definitively that this is an act of terror.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While my hunch is that it is, we don't know that yet. The use of bombs at an event like this almost always indicates terrorism (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Airlines_Flight_11">with</a> a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_629">few</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster">exceptions</a>), but this could be the work of a deranged individual (think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting">Aurora</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting">Newtown</a>) as opposed to someone trying to influence policy or misguidedly drive home some kind of ideology.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At the end of the day, though, this is simply semantics. Whether or not this falls under the pseudo-legal definition of terrorism will not bring back the victims. It will not repair the lives forever altered from senseless violence. It will not restore the atmosphere in Boston just prior to the attack. And that, in and of itself, is terrifying.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-5068902248828309692013-04-15T21:44:00.001-04:002013-04-16T09:18:37.937-04:00A Quick Word on Boston<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>Note: I wanted to break up this post into two parts. I had thought about making two separate posts, but I figured it would be a bit confusing. Part I is a personal reflection on the marathon and the inspiration of the event as a whole and the response of people today after the blast.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Part II is about the media response and the irresponsible speculation by journalists to fill air time and drive ratings and social media metrics.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>I've written this so the first part is standalone, because not everyone is going to be in the mood to read about issues with today's media after such a tragedy.</i><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCJau1y3-vOF6XgznX7fzD1FD2H91ql4XdcFuSiAtnZtpPiLdZsv86-oVAc0UOSB_sTQS-oAwLGazEJqDnn5DD77_AxX4UqHHxUjx8IP7Rm13jAR4vWtCQAnNiJn_jQbC-lCX0W_cMUTSw/s1600/mexplosion+(2).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="411" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCJau1y3-vOF6XgznX7fzD1FD2H91ql4XdcFuSiAtnZtpPiLdZsv86-oVAc0UOSB_sTQS-oAwLGazEJqDnn5DD77_AxX4UqHHxUjx8IP7Rm13jAR4vWtCQAnNiJn_jQbC-lCX0W_cMUTSw/s640/mexplosion+(2).jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/15/explosions-rock-boston-marathon-finish-line-dozens-injured/yLhfDT1XC3HXSa8wPiVijL/picture.html">Boston Globe</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Part I</b><br />
<br />
Having grown up in the Boston area, and spent a decent amount of time on and around Boylston Street in high school, today's events at the marathon have hit close to home, to use a bad cliche. Patriots' Day is a special day in Massachusetts - a day off that most of the rest of the country does not get. Everyone who grew up in and around Boston can remember heading down to the marathon route to cheer on the runners as they go by in droves along the grueling 26.2 mile course.<br />
<br />
Today's bombings will change the marathon for the foreseeable future. The openness and carefree vibe of the event will revert to a more closed and tense atmosphere next year and possibly for years to come. For an event with such a rich and vibrant history, from <a href="http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201304150850/b">the revolutionary</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Ruiz">the bizzarre</a> to <a href="http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/whyirun2012/#/story-1280">the inspirational</a>, the fact that the marathon will forever be tainted with this tragedy is a shame.<br />
<br />
Through all of this sadness and anger, watching the video of the scene right after the blast is inspiring in a way. It is inspiring because you see people rushing to the site of the blast, not knowing if there are any secondary devices waiting to take out first responders. It is inspiring to see cops, EMTs, firefighters, BAA volunteers, and runners working together to tear down barricades and get to the injured. <a href="http://www.rantsports.com/clubhouse/2013/04/15/participants-in-boston-marathon-continued-running-to-mass-general-hospital-to-donate-blood/">Other stories of heroism and kindness</a> coming out of the city do not replace the anger and fear and confusion that follow something like this, but it certainly helps to begin to displace them, which only time and reflection can do.<br />
<br />
<b>Part II</b><br />
<br />
Unfortunately, in contrast to the heartwarming response to such evil, is the ridiculous speculation by media outlets. <a href="http://i.imgur.com/csb65qv.png">The Post reporting that a suspect is in custody and 12 people are dead</a> (neither of which are confirmed true at the time of this writing and the latter having been reputed by BPD Commissioner Ed Davis multiple times). <a href="http://i.imgur.com/Be0LjSi.png">MSNBC jumped on the suspect bandwagon as well</a>. This is just sloppy journalism with shoddy "sources."<br />
<br />
On top of this, there is just wild speculation that has no business in a journalistic environment. I wasn't watching CNN, but from <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/15/boston-marathon-bombing-tweet-reax-ii/">what I heard</a> about Jane Harman she was just spewing speculation with zero basis in fact. Also Luke Russert thought that <a href="https://twitter.com/LukeRussert/status/323890994305191936">because he went to a Red Sox game twenty years ago</a> when Waco happened that there could be a link to the marathon bombing.<br />
<br />
Let me be clear about this: this could be an AQAP bombing. This could be a home-grown domestic terror bombing. If either scenario is true, Harman or Russert deserve zero credit for saying it on air/Twitter. Their speculation adds nothing to the fact finding that occurs after something like this, it adds nothing to the national discourse, and really only muddles what is going on and further confuses people. I understand there's a drive for ratings and retweets, to be the first to break a story, but that should never supersede journalism. Ever.<br />
<br />
In times of tragedy like this there is a human drive to get the facts, to try to make sense of something like this in our minds. We need to see a cause and effect so we can prevent something like this in the future. Unfortunately, rationality and logic are far removed from an event like this and it simply does not make sense. Speculation with no factual backup to try to make sense of it is unfair to both the speculator and the speculatee. We look to the news for information and updates, not ratings-driven false scoops and made-up connections.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-75150580429853674012013-03-20T20:06:00.001-04:002013-03-20T20:06:35.981-04:00Ten Years On: Bush's Iraq Legacy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1j5857G-W8TqG_RJQ2XkVrfxOgimcOgZTUZpHzC_YUE8YCGZswpMkFQXYCFHTlXKOKQ-itIA8gHMViIuD1AhQ8_2kE4LYi_knOEukmbagGt9U-8m_UW0zeeCzcZw1weMOygk_Xha5ztgl/s1600/la-fg-iraq-withdrawl06.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1j5857G-W8TqG_RJQ2XkVrfxOgimcOgZTUZpHzC_YUE8YCGZswpMkFQXYCFHTlXKOKQ-itIA8gHMViIuD1AhQ8_2kE4LYi_knOEukmbagGt9U-8m_UW0zeeCzcZw1weMOygk_Xha5ztgl/s320/la-fg-iraq-withdrawl06.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Combat brigade leaving Iraq in August 2010 (<a href="http://framework.latimes.com/2010/08/18/last-combat-brigade-leaves-iraq/#/9">LATimes</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This week has been full of media navel gazing and dissecting of how so many people were tricked into going to war with Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11 and also most certainly did not have weapons of mass destruction. It is very easy to find reporters and pundits and politicians who were for the Iraq War before they were against it.<br />
<br />
What I wanted to focus on was those so delusional as to think that Bush's legacy in regards to Iraq will be favorable. Those who pointed at W as he left office and said, "History will be kind to him." If you've been reading the news coverage, it's pretty clear that history - both now and in the future - will be anything but kind to the man who is responsible for the deaths of more than a hundred thousand people based on lies. And justifiably so.<br />
<br />
But this post is not a look back at Bush's legacy. This is dedicated to those who continue to defend his decision to invade Iraq despite hindsight being 20/20. Honestly, so many people reversed course after the war that <i>mea culpas</i> would almost go unnoticed at this point. It takes a truly oblivious individual to say that history will improve Bush's foreign policy blunder.<br />
<br />
There's Andrew Roberts over at <i>The Telegraph</i>, who <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4241865/History-will-show-that-George-W-Bush-was-right.html">had this to say</a> as Bush left office:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.</blockquote>
What Andrews misses when talking about "unfinished business" after the Gulf War is that there was none. Take <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Cheney-changed-his-view-on-Iraq-1155325.php">Dick Cheney's own words</a> in 1992:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.</blockquote>
The Gulf War was ended on the United States's terms. And if spurned UN resolutions and human rights abuses are enough to invade and occupy a country, we would be occupying nearly half the globe, including South Africa, India and Pakistan, to name a few.<br />
<br />
Then there's Jeb Bush, who went to bat for his big brother on Meet the Press recently:<br />
<br />
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/swflash.cab" height="336" id="+id+" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjY4MzgtNjcxMDM?color=C93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjY4MzgtNjcxMDM?color=C93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="336" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMjY4MzgtNjcxMDM" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>
<br />
<br />
I understand the family connection here and Jeb's desire to look out for George. There are others from Bush's administration who have come to 43's defense, like <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/26/37073/ashcroft-texas/">John Ashcroft</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/03/rove-tells-critics-bush-is-not-worst-president/?page=all#pagebreak">Karl Rove</a>. While still delusional and wrong, this makes more sense than someone not related to or having worked for the president defending what - both at the time and in retrospect - is and was a horrible decision.<br />
<br />
Many Republicans in the US have marched down the same road of Bush apologism. One of the biggest names is Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/07/19/108434/cornyn-hearts-bush/">said that people are looking back</a> with "more fondness" on President Bush's presidency.<br />
<br />
And 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_War_+_Peace.htm">also endorsed the idea</a> in 2008 that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, even if the management of the war was not the greatest:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now. It was not well managed in after the takedown of Saddam Hussein and his military. That was done brilliantly, an extraordinary success. But in the years that followed, we were undermanaged, underprepared, underplanned, understaffed, and then we come into the phase that we have now. The plan that Bush and General Petraeus put together is working. It’s changing lives there. Perhaps most importantly, it’s making sure that al Qaeda and no other group like them is becoming a superpower, if you will, in the communities, and having a safe haven from which they launch attacks against us. It’s critical for us. The most important issue is what do we do now, and their just run and retreat regardless of the consequences is going to be a real problem for them when they face a debate with a Republican on the stage.</blockquote>
The overwhelming evidence has shown that the American public was lied to, but for some people the cognitive dissonance is so strong as to believe that history will look back on Bush's decision to send our youth into an unnecessary war as beneficial to this country. It was not and is not. There really is no argument that can counter that.<br />
<br />
The human toll is massive. Beyond <a href="http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx">the 4,804 coalition troop deaths</a>, the over 30,000 American troops wounded, <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/">the over 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths</a>, <a href="http://www.juancole.com/2013/03/what-we-did-to-iraq.html">Iraq is gripped by</a> sectarian tensions furthered by the US-endorsed "debaathification" of the country, a severe shortage of doctors, medical care and potable water.<br />
<br />
The war has also had farther reaching consequences geopolitically. As the drum beat for war with Iran increases every year, many forget that Hussein's presence in the region had a stabilizing effect, as the two countries kept each other in relative check. With no Iraq to worry about, Iran is allowed to do what it wants unchecked by what was once a regional power.<br />
<br />
To say that Iraq is a success or that history will look back on George W. Bush kindly for his decision to start a war under false pretenses - <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/20/what-bush-got-right-on-iraq-and-what-obama-can-learn-from-it/">when diplomacy was actually making progress</a> - is ludicrous. If anything, history will become harsher when it comes to Bush's presidency, especially this costly failure.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-29118218960053167632013-02-21T20:12:00.000-05:002013-02-22T13:01:36.869-05:00How to Fix The Republican Party in One Step<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1342/5147999282_ffa36b7e90.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1342/5147999282_ffa36b7e90.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The United States Capitol (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/50020962@N07/5147999282/lightbox/">Flickr/Dray-Dray</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
One of the major setbacks of the Democratic Party is that it is a big tent party; too many factions within the party. Looking back at <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2009/10/what-was-that-lincoln-quote.html">the health care debate</a> it is glaringly obvious that while it can be <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2009/10/what-was-that-lincoln-quote.html">great to have a supermajority</a> on paper, practically it may not work out as well as perceived. The Blue Dog Democrats immediately come to mind when thinking about internal strife within the party.<br />
<br />
This has been the 21st century Democrat's problem: lack of party unity. It's not necessarily the Democratic Party's fault, because in order to have such a large party that aims to be as inclusive as possible you're bound to have some intraparty disagreements. When you have an opponent in George Bush (read: Dick Cheney and Karl Rove) who is able to keep their party in lockstep, convincing the nation to go to war with a country we had no business warring with while eroding civil liberties in the name of safety, it is going to be very difficult to rally any party together to fight it, especially the Democrats. But in 2008 the Dems did just that and then blew it as only the Democrats can.<br />
<br />
But they've been handed a bit of luck, as the pre-2006 Republican Party simply does not exist. It is plagued by the infighting that doomed Obama's domestic legislative agenda from 2008-2010. The fact that the two of the past three State of the Union addresses <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/12/marco-rubio-and-the-state-of-the-union-response-speech-curse.html">had two Republican responses</a>, one official and the other unsanctioned, is evidence of that on a macro level. The drama around <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/279413-boehner-full-of-regret-over-fiscal-cliff-moves">the Boehner speaker vote</a> can point to this on a micro level. Simply put, the Republican party is in crisis.<br />
<br />
The worst part of the whole thing for Republicans is that now is the time to reinvent the party, but instead of coming up with a more dynamic platform to speak to the younger generation disillusioned by Obama's Bush-esque foreign policy and drama-filled presidency (whether he is to blame for the latter is another question), they move further to the right. Their 2012 candidates were embarrassing. They chose to put forth Mitt Romney, one of the most boring and out of touch individuals in recent history (honestly, I'd probably rather have a drink with Al Gore, which is saying a lot) and Paul Ryan, who got smoked by a much-ridiculed and jokey VP Biden in an embarrassing debate. Throw in your fringe candidates who were not distanced enough from the party (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-mourdock-rape-comment-puts-romney-defense/story?id=17552263">Richard Murdouck</a>, <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-voting-ratings/todd-akin-the-most-controversial-senate-candidate-of-2012-was-also-the-most-conservative-member-of-the-house-20130219">Todd Akin</a>) and you're bound to lose favor with the nation, even self-described Republicans. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/poll-republicans-congress_n_2649067.html">We're starting to see this occur</a>.<br />
<br />
Here's what the Republican Party needs to do: drop the culture war and stop with the self-victimization over social issues. Obama is not a Marxist, gay marriage will not ruin yours, and as much as it may pain the Republican Party to hear it, separation of church and state is a major part of this country's founding. Until the GOP realizes this, there will be no groundswell movement of young, disillusioned voters to their side of the aisle. Until Rush Limbaugh and Fox News talking heads <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/george-will-republican-leaders-are-afraid-of-rush-limbaugh/">no longer hold so much power in the party</a>, masses of young people will steer clear from the GOP.<br />
<br />
There can be two ways for the current dual-party system to go. One of the parties can adapt and bring in a fed up, young generation of voters and dominate until at least 2020. Or a new party can emerge - maybe a coalition of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats (again, as long as they're not overly focused on some made up culture war) who feel their parties are missing out on a huge opportunity for votes (and they'd be right). If the two parties increase the polarization we've seen in Washington, Juan Linz may have to <a href="http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/linz_perils_presidencialism.pdf">update his famous piece on presidential democracy</a>. Let's hope we don't get to that point.<br />
<br />
<i>Correction 22 February 2013: A previous version of this post said that VP Biden smoked Ron Paul in a debate, when in reality it was Paul Ryan who was embarrassed that night.</i></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-77956150442064088952012-12-17T22:29:00.000-05:002012-12-17T22:29:14.010-05:00What Is Sandy Hook About?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifKIJOBoIkxM6tZDusiRcvQzhJgoYDR1-RELXkYyTNizXm-Qs1bnmONdyvKxaj1xrXZ5orrb0jbgRaClfH8GcK9z1cZc6Rz7Vm4EpqDeoA2l0j0mu6ecpXWfkprs9cp2sLQBn1X1Z4Op-v/s1600/names.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifKIJOBoIkxM6tZDusiRcvQzhJgoYDR1-RELXkYyTNizXm-Qs1bnmONdyvKxaj1xrXZ5orrb0jbgRaClfH8GcK9z1cZc6Rz7Vm4EpqDeoA2l0j0mu6ecpXWfkprs9cp2sLQBn1X1Z4Op-v/s640/names.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A makeshift memorial at Sandy Hook Elementary School (Source: <a href="http://nation.time.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-shooting-the-names-of-the-dead/">TIME</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Over the past few days there have been a very vocal contingent of those calling for increased gun control in the wake of the horrible massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. We've seen New York City Mayor Michael <a href="http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=A4D0DBE4-C29C-7CA2-F9D30A6DA1311AA0">Bloomberg on Meet the Press</a>. We've seen Joe Scarborough, a former Congressman given the highest rating from the NRA, come out <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/conservative-joe-scarborough-stuns-call-gun-control-article-1.1222198">in favor of increased gun control</a>. Even West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin - who was endorsed by the NRA in the 2012 senate election and even made <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xIJORBRpOPM">a campaign ad in which he shot a copy</a> of the cap and trade bill with a rifle - has had <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/12/17/even_joe_manchin_is_talking_about_gun_control_now.html">positive things to say</a> about potential gun control legislation.<br />
<br />
One notable absence from the national dialogue about guns in America is the National Rifle Association. They've been silent on their Twitter account and deactivated their Facebook page, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/17/nra_facebook_twitter_accounts_go_silent_after_connecticut_shooting.html">mere days after bragging about the more than 1.7 million "Likes" it had received</a>. This is not rare, <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/how-the-nra-communications-twitter-handles-a-mass">as the NRA has remained silent in the face of national tragedy before</a>. Additionally, many senators refused to talk about their support for gun rights over the weekend. Meet the Press asked 31 pro-gun senators if they wanted to appear on Sunday's show. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/politics/bloomberg-urges-obama-to-take-action-on-gun-control.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0">Not one accepted</a>.<br />
<br />
For such a principled group like the NRA, to be silent when those principles are called into question does not look good. There are two main reasons for something like this, neither of which bodes well for the group. On the one hand, they could be wavering in their views and slowly coming to the view that <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57559669/poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-at-10-year-high/">many Americans have</a>: this country needs stricter gun control. I highly doubt this, as the NRA is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/may99/nra050199.htm">the group that held their annual convention</a> in Denver not 11 days after the Columbine massacre less than 15 miles away.<br />
<br />
The second - and more plausible reason - is that in this day and age, many of the NRA's positions are indefensible. No citizen needs assault weapons. Someone like Nancy Lanza <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/friends-of-gunmans-mother-his-first-victim-recall-her-as-generous.html?_r=0">didn't need five guns</a>. Hunting these days is for pure sport, not survival. Other countries have tightened gun restrictions in the wake of shooting tragedies <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/121217/sandy-hook-newtown-shooting-gun-control-australia-scotland-finland-changed-gun-laws-after-shooting">with positive results</a>. Why can't we do the same in America?<br />
<br />
While the NRA and many elected officials have been silent, some pro-gun individuals have spoken out - but not about guns. They point to everything but in order to deflect the blame from easy access to guns. Mike Huckabee is the forerunner here, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/huckabee_blames_gays_for_the_newtown_massacre/">blaming everything</a> from no prayer in schools to gays to abortion pills to smartphones to evolution. But he's not alone. I won't dignify <a href="http://now.msn.com/dennis-richardson-says-he-could-have-stopped-sandy-hook-murders">other talking heads</a> who have spoken out about this in even more ridiculous ways by analyzing their statements here.<br />
<br />
I'll agree that mental health plays a role in this tragedy, and it is certainly something to talk about, but it's not the main point. I would pose this question who feel mental health plays a greater role than access to guns: what's easier to ban, mental disease or firearms? The answer is obvious.<br />
<br />
So at the end of day it's not about God or gays or smartphones. It's not even primarily about mental health. It's about guns.<br />
<br />
On a more personal note, this is not some screed from some lifelong anti-gun crusader. I've shot many kinds of guns, and while I have never been a card-carrying member of the NRA (by any stretch of the imagination), I have not been very vocal about restricting guns in the past. I even planned on owning a gun when I lived in a part of the country that allowed it (essentially anywhere but New York City).<br />
<br />
Newtown has changed that. There's no valid reason I need a gun. There's no reason this country needs to have higher gun ownership per capita than <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/">one of the poorest countries in the Middle East</a> with a weak central government. I refuse to add to that statistic and add another firearm to a country already saturated with them. I don't need a 21st century killing tool governed by 18th century doctrine. I feel - and hope - that after the heartbreaking events on Friday that many will join me in this thinking.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-3408863166274814182012-12-15T10:36:00.000-05:002012-12-15T10:36:02.079-05:00Newtown and Gun Control<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho95dE7BvNpxRrx1d0K4nbwisSYCG5NUCqJRbDAFYYfjUYQYFgfPpKV5ZD45iK7SNFk4GrKr7ovRYqmtaxXFYHmZhIo82NLdt4-Ae8tCoEzjOcNQsVM0lQ_MX-HBkRzCT4iA2TmN3dzPR3/s1600/20121215_SHOOTING_GOBIG-slide-1ZSN-jumbo-v2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="331" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho95dE7BvNpxRrx1d0K4nbwisSYCG5NUCqJRbDAFYYfjUYQYFgfPpKV5ZD45iK7SNFk4GrKr7ovRYqmtaxXFYHmZhIo82NLdt4-Ae8tCoEzjOcNQsVM0lQ_MX-HBkRzCT4iA2TmN3dzPR3/s640/20121215_SHOOTING_GOBIG-slide-1ZSN-jumbo-v2.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Children being led away from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, CT after the shooting. (Source: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp">NYTimes</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I looked on with horror, as much of the nation did yesterday, as news reports were coming out of Newtown, Connecticut about the horrible tragedy taking place there. To imagine what occurred in that classroom yesterday morning is something impossible to do without going to a dark place, and that's not what this post is about. Instead, it's about one aspect of the shooting that makes it all the more heart-wrenching.<br />
<br />
This did not have to happen. This did not occur out of the blue. I don't mean to say that there were specific signs relating directly to Adam Lanza. I'm saying that we've seen massacre after massacre, from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre">Columbine</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre">Virginia Tech</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_County_massacre">Geneva County</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings">Binghamton</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting">Aurora</a>. The guns from these massacres appear to have been bought legally - they were not purchased in some back alley black market deal. They were bought from gun shows or dealers.<br />
<br />
And it appears that the guns used in the Newtown massacre were <a href="https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/279735498589757440">also purchased legally by Lanza's mother</a>. With so many guns out there in the country - there are almost 300 million guns in this nation, whose population is 315 million - some are going to end up in the hands of those who have no business having one, as happened today. The answer is not more guns in this country, as <a href="https://twitter.com/aurosan/status/279767877270265856/photo/1">the NRA would have you believe</a>, but less guns. It's simple math: the less guns there are in this country, the less opportunity for massacres like the one that occurred in Newtown.<br />
<br />
There's another underlying factor here, and it has to do with mental health. We don't need to wait for the psychiatric profiles to come out to know that a person who would do this to children is not well. But even with the best mental health services available, there will still be sick people in the world. We cannot prevent that. What we can prevent is the preponderance of firearms out there. Because if a mentally ill person is determined to hurt others, he will. The problem is that his ability to hurt others is exponentially increased when he is carrying a gun.<br />
<br />
Look at a country like the UK, which has very strict gun laws. Their firearms-related homicide rate is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate">nearly 100 times lower</a> than the US's. One hundred times. Some point to America's "gun culture." I cannot really speak to that without a sociological background, but I will share a quote from <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/guns-america">the Economist blog</a> from today that gave me pause:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Even in a country as accustomed to gun violence (and, increasingly, mass shootings) as America, the murder of 20 children in their elementary-school classroom is uniquely shocking.</blockquote>
According to this quote, had this been the murder of 20 innocent adults it would have been a talking point for a week or so before being replaced by another news story. We have massacre fatigue, which speaks to how regular mass shootings occur in this country. Let's not forget that today's tragedy is overshadowing a shooting earlier in the week in Oregon in which <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-mall-shooter-jacob-roberts-quit-job-hawaii/story?id=17946938">a man opened fire with an assault weapon</a> on Christmas shoppers at a mall, killing two.<br />
<br />
We have to ask ourselves if the continued loss of life is worth such easy access to firearms. What are we gaining as a society by maintaining such an easy buying process for guns? Do the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm">more than 11,000 people killed</a> every year in America in firearm-related homicides outnumber those who have used their firearms for self-defense? What about the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm">almost 19,000 people who kill themselves</a> with a gun? If anything positive can come out of such a horrendous event, it is an honest look at gun policy in this country. It's just incredibly tragic that it would have taken a room full of dead children for it to happen.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-44726603978403322772012-09-24T19:44:00.000-04:002012-09-24T20:04:42.437-04:002012 Election Primer: Obama and Romney<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik4xIFjVk3oREbX320sXDaz7Z-kroLn8NsyFgzYiH830obTCRPMIrTlm0ix4MUl4rz6wFFRuTspndjMKINiDHqugMs-wwhUWC-IIJm_mhbGh5nzvkK2Ino85Q2pixdhBlI38GsiYS-4ikD/s1600/Obamney.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik4xIFjVk3oREbX320sXDaz7Z-kroLn8NsyFgzYiH830obTCRPMIrTlm0ix4MUl4rz6wFFRuTspndjMKINiDHqugMs-wwhUWC-IIJm_mhbGh5nzvkK2Ino85Q2pixdhBlI38GsiYS-4ikD/s320/Obamney.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Obama and Romney (<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74851.html">Politico</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So after a bunch of requests (read: 3) to write up an election primer, I decided that it is time to give the people what they want: to know what a random 20-something in New York who thinks he knows more than he does feels is the best candidate to cast your ballot for in November.<br />
<br />
I began this election season promising myself that I would vote for neither candidate and instead write someone in. President Obama, in my opinion (and I can't explain to you the amount of flak I've received for this) has been an underwhelming president when compared to the candidate he was in 2008. And that last sentence fragment is important: when compared to the candidate he was in 2008. All in all, Obama's done some good things domestically (repealing DADT, his <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2012/05/obama-comes-out-in-support-of-same-sex.html">better-late-than-never</a> support of marriage equality, healthcare reform).<br />
<br />
That's only one side of the coin, however. I've chronicled my disappointment with President Obama numerous times on this blog (<a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2012/05/obama-doesnt-want-you-breaking-law-but.html">here</a>, <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2011/03/obama-speech-on-libya-close-but-no.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2011/01/amidst-success-obamas-one-glaring.html">here</a> to begin with). One thing that you'll notice about those articles (and most of my gripes about Obama) is that his foreign policy is, in a word, horrible. It is unfathomable to me that those who derided Bush's war mongering will defend Obama for 2012.<br />
<br />
Obama is leading this country in the wrong direction, but not in the way that Fox News would have you believe. Precedents are being set in the Obama White House that could have dire consequences down the road.<br />
<br />
For one, take the drone program (<a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/drone-documents-why-the-government-wont-release-them">a program that is technically entirely classified</a>). We have drones flying over many countries - countries with whom we are at war and countries with whom we are not at war. This <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/06/06/is-the-u-s-setting-precedents-in-its-drone-wars/">sets a serious precedent</a> for other countries who may want to fly drones over the United States when they get the same technology we currently have.<br />
<br />
Moving beyond the precedent it sets, however, is the diplomatic damage that drone strikes carry given their <a href="http://www.propublica.org/special/how-obama-drone-death-claims-stack-up">civilian casualties</a>. We conduct drone operations in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; countries we are not at war with. This comes back to the precedent setting: can you imagine if Islamabad began flying drones, making strikes and killing American civilians?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdqykDZPx5NQnUotThFRlIgsZ46STAP2HEiq_YWhyphenhyphentifbZFRJHIK7-w37qvEjH2YRsXFpsnH-7OrjztXSno0NYSDIL52pHnD-SmU60IKAhD0KL2AJVE04NL-caUZ1rT2cEUGEVVpEkrDED/s1600/drone.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdqykDZPx5NQnUotThFRlIgsZ46STAP2HEiq_YWhyphenhyphentifbZFRJHIK7-w37qvEjH2YRsXFpsnH-7OrjztXSno0NYSDIL52pHnD-SmU60IKAhD0KL2AJVE04NL-caUZ1rT2cEUGEVVpEkrDED/s320/drone.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A drone equipped with weapons and a camera (<a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/10/pakistan-to-us/">Wired</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But it's not only about the drones. It's about <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879">extralegal killings of American citizens in non-war zones</a>. It's about a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?ref=unmannedaerialvehicles&_r=0">dubiously legal "kill list,</a>" despite <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333">a longstanding executive order</a> against such assassinations. It's about <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2011/01/amidst-success-obamas-one-glaring.html">not closing</a> what will certainly be viewed as a black-eye on this nation in the form of Guantanamo.<br />
<br />
Going back to precedents, Obama seems to be making <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2010/08/shadow-war.html">the same, if not similar</a>, mistakes his predecessors made in Afghanistan. During the Libya non-war, I decried the support for <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14135530">the untrained rebels fighting Colonel Qaddafi</a>. Throwing supplies and intel at a group not ready for it is not good foreign policy. In fact, when I heard that <a href="http://www.necn.com/09/15/12/FBI-team-heading-to-Libya-to-investigate/landing.html?blockID=773739&feedID=11106">the attack on the late Ambassador Chris Stevens was coordinated</a> I wondered if any of the attackers were former Libyan rebels who had received training or materiel from the U.S. or other NATO nations. We've seen similar problems with <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/opinion/opinion-afghanistan-green-on-blue/index.html">green on blue attacks in Afghanistan</a> in which US-trained Afghan forces attack US soldiers.<br />
<br />
It is for these reasons that I simply felt that I could not vote for Barack Obama come November. That view is beginning to change, however, and it has nothing to do with anything Obama is doing.<br />
<br />
I knew I was not going to vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it was. The post-Reagan conservative is simply too beholden to the religious right (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm">cue the famous Barry Goldwater quote</a>). You look at candidates like Rick Santorum or Rick Perry and you shake your head wondering what has happened to the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
Now, Mitt Romney would appear to be the most palatable of the Republican candidates. Having lived in Massachusetts while he was governor and seeing the good things he did during that time (near-universal healthcare, turning around a large deficit), I have been amazed to see Romney backtrack from his accomplishments. In 2008 I asked a good friend his opinion of Romney and he replied that he was spineless and would say anything to get elected. His prescient statement has more than proven true.<br />
<br />
We could get into the issues with Romney, but one problem is I simply don't know where he stands on anything. It changes so frequently that it <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-stonewall#">makes Obama's flip-flop on gay marriage</a> look like, well, evolution. Romney simply cannot <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/mitt-romneys-biggest-flip-flops-20120801">choose one side</a> of a position and keep it.<br />
<br />
One thing I like in a president is transparency (this is another arena in which I've been disappointed with the Obama administration). Needless to say, the fact that Romney refuses to release his tax returns (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/on-tax-returns-mitt-wont-follow-the-leader--his-dad/2012/07/11/gJQAMLy3cW_blog.html">a tradition started by his own father</a>, to boot) does not sit well. The fact that he and his campaign allowed it to become a months-long campaign issue indicates to me that whatever he wanted to hide in the returns was worth hiding.<br />
<br />
I was never going to cast my vote for Romney; that was decided well before he won the Republican nomination. But what Romney has done through his ridiculous missteps - the Egypt and Libya <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-romney-shoots-aims-embassy-attack-comments/story?id=17219337">embassy attacks statement</a>, the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-no-romney-specifics-20120917,0,7633328.story">utter lack of specifics</a> in any of his policy, <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/who-are-47/56965/">the 47% irrationale</a> - has made me so angry that I might actually vote for Obama out of spite for Romney. Romney's seeming ineptitude has moved me in such a way that I might actually vote for a president who I think is setting this country up for a very difficult foreign policy environment in the near and long-term future.<br />
<br />
So to sum it up: I do not want to vote for Obama, but if voting for neither candidate would give Romney any kind of advantage (no matter how small) it actually may be irresponsible of me, given my worldview, to <i>not</i> vote Obama in November. I felt that the 2008 election was the first one in a while that gave the American people a chance to actually vote for a quality candidate, as opposed to the lesser of the two evils. And I maintain that Obama was a good candidate; he just could not live up to that candidate as president. This election will definitely fall into the "lesser of two evils category." I'm just angry that Romney's horrendous campaign may actually force me to choose one.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231025971179579698.post-54824146877377059592012-06-03T23:46:00.000-04:002012-06-03T23:48:50.610-04:00Bloomberg to City: No Soda for You!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbdQwjp-rvXMrMPtERlqtA-_ML_EZyVGwW9T5TS-eFVSybp7A2Q8egojK2L-AXrUNL-wsQe-6cWzu4_OoQkTjrGp_2CfVjpfyLNZX3wJezhXkSWv6D7tFVORhJQfFeJaEfIvh1pHls0td2/s1600/nosoda.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbdQwjp-rvXMrMPtERlqtA-_ML_EZyVGwW9T5TS-eFVSybp7A2Q8egojK2L-AXrUNL-wsQe-6cWzu4_OoQkTjrGp_2CfVjpfyLNZX3wJezhXkSWv6D7tFVORhJQfFeJaEfIvh1pHls0td2/s320/nosoda.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">No soda for you! (Photoshop)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I'm not the biggest fan of Bloomberg personally—I think he's an egomaniac whose third term power grab was way out of line. That's not to mention <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kelly#As_41st_NYC_Police_Commissioner_Under_Bloomberg_.282002.E2.80.93present.29">Ray Kelly's actions under Bloomberg</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathie_Black">Cathie Black</a>, and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/bloombergs-helicopter-breaks-curfew-east-34th-street-helicopter_n_1539020.html">his general "the rules don't apply to me" attitude</a>. Policy-wise, however, I like some of what Bloomberg has done (or at least tried to do).<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He was <a href="http://www.thesecondageblog.com/2009/06/whos-to-blame-for-mta-mess-everyone.html">a backer of congestion pricing</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/nyregion/restaurant-grading-system-under-fire-gets-mayors-backing.html">he instituted restaurant letter grades</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg#Public_health">he banned smoking in bars and restaurants</a>, as well as <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/feb/22/bloomberg-signs-smoking-ban-parks-beaches/">parks and other public outdoor spaces</a>. His public health campaigns have been one consistent bright spot in Bloomberg's mayoralty.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Until this week. Bloomberg has proposed outright banning the sale of a cup or bottle of sweetened drink over 16 ounces (the size of a small drink at McDonald's). An action like this, without a doubt, would be the prototypical nanny state kind of government that Americans on both sides of the aisle should be up in arms about. Here is something perfectly legal and Bloomberg wants to ban it based on how much comes in a cup? When you take a step back and look at it, it is ludicrous.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But Bloomberg's motives for this kind of extreme action are noble. He wants to counteract obesity, which is a rising problem in America. And it is not insignificant. A <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db82.pdf">whopping 35.7% of Americans are obese</a>. Not just overweight. Obese. Medical costs in 2008 <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html">associated with obesity were $147 billion</a>. For scale, that is $7 billion more than the GDP of Hungary.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So Bloomberg is right that people should be drinking less sweetened drinks, but it's their body so they can do what they want with it, right? Absolutely. Except for one thing: that $147 billion number cited above is paid for by everybody—not just obese individuals who contribute to it. Take this statement from <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan04004/efan04004g.pdf">a RAND essay on the topic</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Obesity also has externalities associated with it—namely, mortality and health insurance costs. Because medical costs are higher for the obese and premiums do not depend on weight, lighter people in the same pool pay for the food/exercise decisions of the obese. Furthermore, the negative health effects of obesity decrease the ability of the obese to pay for government-mandated social programs.</blockquote>
Obesity does not just affect those who suffer from it, but in reality affects every member of society who pays for healthcare or any kind of government benefit (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) In today's current society, it violates <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle">John Stuart Mill's harm principle</a>.<br />
<br />
One solution can be seen in the way government handles other societal harms, such as tobacco. Consuming cigarettes is a personal choice, one that the government has deemed the populous worthy of making. However, it is generally accepted (<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21565663">the tobacco industry notwithstanding</a>) that smoking is bad for you. Not only is it bad for you, it <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm">is physically harmful to those in your immediate vicinity</a>.<br />
<br />
The government's response to this has not been to ban tobacco products. It has taken another approach in the form of taxation. In other words, the federal, state and some local governments have decided to tax the hell out of tobacco to disincentivize people from consuming it. But has it worked?<br />
<br />
Overwhelmingly. Not only does a tax on tobacco decrease cigarette sales, that decrease is <a href="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.82.1.94">directly proportional to the size of the tax</a>. So why can't we do what we've done with tobacco and just tax sweetened drinks over 16 ounces? We should then take the taxes and put them towards efforts to further curb obesity in the city, such as free workout programs or free cooking classes.<br />
<br />
New York state tried to tax these drinks, with Bloomberg's full support, but the measure failed. The soda industry—who would be highly affected by a sweetened drink tax—<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all">is a powerful lobbying force</a>. But it is important to note here that Bloomberg's ban would only be city-wide, not state-wide. In fact, his ban is all but passed. Take this passage from the New York Times article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.</blockquote>
So it really is not a matter of if these drinks will be banned, but when (the <i>Times</i> says it could be as early as next March). Bloomberg's ends are in the ballpark, but his means are not the way to go about it.<br />
<br />
Of course, it is important to note that even if Nanny Bloomberg does ban these drinks (and the next mayor does not somehow overturn the ban), it will not stop obesity. In addition to disincentivizing harmful habits, the city needs to incentivize positive ones. It would be a lot easier to provide these incentives from a city-wide soda tax.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1