Original Post: Reason
Zenon Evans
Back in April, Logan Middle School in West Virginia found itself at the center of controversy when it suspended Jared Marcum, called the police, and had the eighth grader arrested. The teen's crime? Wearing a t-shirt that had a picture of a rifle and text that said, “NRA: Protect your right."
The teenager, who has no previous criminal record, went before a judge last week. He was officially charged with obstructing an officer, which carries a potential penalty of a $500 fine and up to one year in jail. WOWKTV reports:
We obtained official court documents from both sides of this case. On one hand, he arresting officer from the Logan City Police Department, James Adkins, claims that when Jared refused to stop talking, that hindered his ability to do his job, hence, the obstruction charge. On the other side, Ben White points out that nowhere in the arresting officer's petition, does it mention Jared ever making any threats or acting in a violent manner.
"Jared didn’t do anything wrong," his lawyer said. "Officer Adkins could have done something differently," he added. The boy's stepfather, Allen Lardieiri, expressed his disbelief that the situation ever progressed this far. He said, "I don't' see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn't forbid it.”
Marcum insists that at the core of his legal trouble is a fight for constitutional rights. "What they're doing is trying to take away my rights, my freedom of speech and my second amendment,” Marcum said after being arrested. Lardieri stood by statement, reiterating that “what happened here in Logan can reverberate outside of Logan. This isn’t over and neither are our rights.”
The Logan County Board of Education's dress code can be found here. Although the school system forbids “clothing and accessories that display profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexually suggestive phrases” as well as advertisements for any alcohol, tobacco, or drug product,” there is no mention of firearms of any kind or the NRA.
Showing posts with label 1st amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1st amendment. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Obama administration targets Fox News reporter in 'chilling' echo of AP probe
Original Post: CS Monitor
By Husna Haq
Associated Press reporters are not alone. One week after news broke that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records from AP, more news has emerged about the Obama administration’s campaign to silence leaks.
Gary Pruitt, CEO of the Associated press, told CBS's "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources. This time, it’s new details about a 2010 Justice Department investigation into a Fox News correspondent who reported government secrets on North Korea. The twist is that in the Fox News case, the government is suggesting that the reporter broke the law and criminal charges could result.
The news points to how the Obama administration is going to unprecedented lengths to defend secrets – prosecuting more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the crackdown is having an effect, with AP saying some of its sources are falling silent. But that success could come at the expense of the newsgathering and investigative-reporting process that the Founding Fathers saw as a crucial check on federal power.
The Fox News case, in particular, suggests the “criminalization of investigative journalism,” writes Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian, a British newspaper.
According to a Washington Post report Sunday, Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen reported in June 2009 on a CIA analysis that suggested North Korea may respond to UN sanctions with more nuclear tests. The story was published online the same day that a confidential report on the matter was released to select officials in the intelligence community, including a State Department security adviser, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.
Detecting a connection, FBI investigators built a case alleging Mr. Kim leaked information to Mr. Rosen. To do so, they used every tool in their arsenal: analyzing security badge access records to track Rosen’s comings and goings from the State Department, tracing the timing of his calls to Kim, even subpoenaing his personal e-mails. Ultimately, FBI agents concluded Kim did, in fact, leak information to Rosen using a complex, if clumsy, system of communication including aliases and coded signals.
In his report, FBI investigator Reginald Reyes said evidence suggested Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
While details on the case are forthcoming, it is not a crime for journalists to report classified information, except in rare circumstances. Furthermore, government seizure of media records is tightly circumscribed under the government’s Code of Federal Regulations.
The AP and Fox News cases renew concerns about the potential stifling effect government investigations have on reporters and their sources.
“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” said First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin in the Washington Post report. “That’s a very dangerous road to go down.”
Jane Mayer of The New Yorker goes further: “It's a huge impediment to reporting, and so chilling isn't quite strong enough, it's more like freezing the whole process into a standstill,” she told the New Republic.
As a case in point, Gary Pruitt, CEO of the AP, told CBS’s "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources.
“Already, officials that would normally talk to us and people we talk to in the normal course of news gathering are already saying to us that they're a little reluctant to talk to us,” he said. “They fear that they – they will be monitored by the government.”
Perhaps the most serious implication, however, is that the investigations threaten to jeopardize the very practice of investigative journalism, already endangered by budget cuts and the 24/7 news cycle.
“Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information,” writes The Guardian's Mr. Greenwald. “That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ – that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for 'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information – is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself.”
By Husna Haq
Associated Press reporters are not alone. One week after news broke that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records from AP, more news has emerged about the Obama administration’s campaign to silence leaks.
Gary Pruitt, CEO of the Associated press, told CBS's "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources. This time, it’s new details about a 2010 Justice Department investigation into a Fox News correspondent who reported government secrets on North Korea. The twist is that in the Fox News case, the government is suggesting that the reporter broke the law and criminal charges could result.
The news points to how the Obama administration is going to unprecedented lengths to defend secrets – prosecuting more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the crackdown is having an effect, with AP saying some of its sources are falling silent. But that success could come at the expense of the newsgathering and investigative-reporting process that the Founding Fathers saw as a crucial check on federal power.
The Fox News case, in particular, suggests the “criminalization of investigative journalism,” writes Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian, a British newspaper.
According to a Washington Post report Sunday, Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen reported in June 2009 on a CIA analysis that suggested North Korea may respond to UN sanctions with more nuclear tests. The story was published online the same day that a confidential report on the matter was released to select officials in the intelligence community, including a State Department security adviser, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.
Detecting a connection, FBI investigators built a case alleging Mr. Kim leaked information to Mr. Rosen. To do so, they used every tool in their arsenal: analyzing security badge access records to track Rosen’s comings and goings from the State Department, tracing the timing of his calls to Kim, even subpoenaing his personal e-mails. Ultimately, FBI agents concluded Kim did, in fact, leak information to Rosen using a complex, if clumsy, system of communication including aliases and coded signals.
In his report, FBI investigator Reginald Reyes said evidence suggested Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
While details on the case are forthcoming, it is not a crime for journalists to report classified information, except in rare circumstances. Furthermore, government seizure of media records is tightly circumscribed under the government’s Code of Federal Regulations.
The AP and Fox News cases renew concerns about the potential stifling effect government investigations have on reporters and their sources.
“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” said First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin in the Washington Post report. “That’s a very dangerous road to go down.”
Jane Mayer of The New Yorker goes further: “It's a huge impediment to reporting, and so chilling isn't quite strong enough, it's more like freezing the whole process into a standstill,” she told the New Republic.
As a case in point, Gary Pruitt, CEO of the AP, told CBS’s "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources.
“Already, officials that would normally talk to us and people we talk to in the normal course of news gathering are already saying to us that they're a little reluctant to talk to us,” he said. “They fear that they – they will be monitored by the government.”
Perhaps the most serious implication, however, is that the investigations threaten to jeopardize the very practice of investigative journalism, already endangered by budget cuts and the 24/7 news cycle.
“Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information,” writes The Guardian's Mr. Greenwald. “That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ – that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for 'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information – is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself.”
IRS asked pro-life group about 'the content of their prayers'
Original Post:Washington Examiner
During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.
“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’" Schock declared.
“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?” asked Schock. “The content of one’s prayers?”
“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller replied.
After Schock pressed him further, Miller explained that although he couldn't comment on the specific case, it would "surprise him" if that question was asked.
The report comes from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm for religious liberty.
Sign Up for the Politics Digest newsletter! From their report:
Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.
During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.
“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’" Schock declared.
“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?” asked Schock. “The content of one’s prayers?”
“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller replied.
After Schock pressed him further, Miller explained that although he couldn't comment on the specific case, it would "surprise him" if that question was asked.
The report comes from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm for religious liberty.
Sign Up for the Politics Digest newsletter! From their report:
Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
The IRS admits to targeting conservative groups but were they also leaking?
Original Post: Daily Caller
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
UPDATE: In December of 2012, ProPublica wrote that they had obtained the application for recognition of tax-exempt status for Crossroads GPS, filed in September of 2010.
As the ProPublica story noted:
“‘As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved,’ Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said in an email.
“The IRS sent Crossroads’ application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn’t include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of nonprofits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.
“In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group’s application was still in limbo.
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
UPDATE: In December of 2012, ProPublica wrote that they had obtained the application for recognition of tax-exempt status for Crossroads GPS, filed in September of 2010.
As the ProPublica story noted:
“‘As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved,’ Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said in an email.
“The IRS sent Crossroads’ application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn’t include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of nonprofits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.
“In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group’s application was still in limbo.
Monday, May 13, 2013
After Benghazi, IRS tea party probe: Govt seized AP phone records
Original Post: Yahoo
By Olivier Knox
Exactly ten days ago, President Barack Obama was piously telling reporters who cover him that free speech and an independent press are “essential pillars of our democracy.” On Monday, the Associated Press accused his administration of undermining that very pillar by secretly obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records of AP reporters and editors.
“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
The latest revelations are sure to pour fuel on the fire of Richard Nixon comparisons in the wake of revelations that the IRS may have improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative, tea party-linked groups. This might, in order words, not be a great time to announce a groundbreaking trip to China.
And the news threatens to pile fresh political woes on a second term already burdened by a painful gun control defeat, a seemingly stalled economic agenda, and Republican rage at the botched response to the Sept. 12, 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
The revelations that the Justice Department may have sought AP phone records drew an angry response from Republican House Speaker John Boehner's office. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
And Laura Murphy, a top American Civil Liberties Union official in Washington, D.C., condemned "unwarranted surveillance" of the press and urged Holder to explain what transpired "so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”
Holder was expected to face questions on the issue when he appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia did not answer a question from Yahoo News on whether other news outlets had been targeted. The spokesman, Bill Miller, did not confirm the AP allegations, but insisted in a statement that "we take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations."
Pruitt, in his letter to Holder, fiercely disagreed. He said that the Justice Department had obtained telephone records for more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AP -- the world's largest wire service -- and its journalists. The records cover a two-month span in early 2012 and cover phones lines for AP in New York City, Washington D.C., Hartford, Conn., and one line at the AP workspace in the House of Representatives.
"This action was taken without advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were seized by the Department," Pruitt wrote. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt wrote. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." Pruitt called it "particularly troubling" that the Justice Department "undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation."
In his statement, Miller said DoJ regulations "require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media."
And "we must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation," he said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws."
An Associated Press news story on the Justice Department's actions noted: The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
Ever since the days of his history-making 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly cast himself as a champion of open government and reform. Aides are fond of praising "the most transparent administration in history" -- a moniker that might be accurate, but mostly because of poor standards set by his predecessors. It's like being the most powerful cricket team in Alaska.
And the Obama administration has not been shy about taking steps to deny Freedom of Information Act requests on national security grounds.
Just ten days ago, on May 3, Obama noted during a visit to Costa Rica that it was "World Press Freedom Day."
"So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy," he said.
On Monday, Obama was scooping up cash for Democrats in New York City. His spokesman, Jay Carney, referred questions about the AP letter to the Justice Department.
By Olivier Knox
Exactly ten days ago, President Barack Obama was piously telling reporters who cover him that free speech and an independent press are “essential pillars of our democracy.” On Monday, the Associated Press accused his administration of undermining that very pillar by secretly obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records of AP reporters and editors.
“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
The latest revelations are sure to pour fuel on the fire of Richard Nixon comparisons in the wake of revelations that the IRS may have improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative, tea party-linked groups. This might, in order words, not be a great time to announce a groundbreaking trip to China.
And the news threatens to pile fresh political woes on a second term already burdened by a painful gun control defeat, a seemingly stalled economic agenda, and Republican rage at the botched response to the Sept. 12, 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
The revelations that the Justice Department may have sought AP phone records drew an angry response from Republican House Speaker John Boehner's office. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
And Laura Murphy, a top American Civil Liberties Union official in Washington, D.C., condemned "unwarranted surveillance" of the press and urged Holder to explain what transpired "so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”
Holder was expected to face questions on the issue when he appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia did not answer a question from Yahoo News on whether other news outlets had been targeted. The spokesman, Bill Miller, did not confirm the AP allegations, but insisted in a statement that "we take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations."
Pruitt, in his letter to Holder, fiercely disagreed. He said that the Justice Department had obtained telephone records for more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AP -- the world's largest wire service -- and its journalists. The records cover a two-month span in early 2012 and cover phones lines for AP in New York City, Washington D.C., Hartford, Conn., and one line at the AP workspace in the House of Representatives.
"This action was taken without advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were seized by the Department," Pruitt wrote. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt wrote. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." Pruitt called it "particularly troubling" that the Justice Department "undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation."
In his statement, Miller said DoJ regulations "require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media."
And "we must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation," he said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws."
An Associated Press news story on the Justice Department's actions noted: The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
Ever since the days of his history-making 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly cast himself as a champion of open government and reform. Aides are fond of praising "the most transparent administration in history" -- a moniker that might be accurate, but mostly because of poor standards set by his predecessors. It's like being the most powerful cricket team in Alaska.
And the Obama administration has not been shy about taking steps to deny Freedom of Information Act requests on national security grounds.
Just ten days ago, on May 3, Obama noted during a visit to Costa Rica that it was "World Press Freedom Day."
"So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy," he said.
On Monday, Obama was scooping up cash for Democrats in New York City. His spokesman, Jay Carney, referred questions about the AP letter to the Justice Department.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Stacey Dash 'shocked' by 'fury' over her Romney support
Original Post: USA Today
Stacey Dash told Piers Morgan on his CNN show Tuesday night that her support for Mitt Romney has provoked some serious negative feedback.
The Clueless actress tweeted her political opinion on Sunday, writing: "Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future."
She was immediately slammed with Tweets attacking her. One example: "Wait Stacey Dash is voting for Romney? You get a lil money and you forget that you're black and a woman. Two things Romney hates."
And one of the latest came from Samuel L. Jackson, who said, "Wait, did Stacey Dash Really endorse Romney today?! REALLY????! Is she CRA...........??!"
Dash, 46, told Morgan last night, "I really don't understand the fury. I don't get it. ... I was shocked, really shocked. But you can't expect everyone to agree with you."
Dash explained to Morgan that she was a Democrat and voted for Barack Obama in the last election, but now, "I want the next four years to be different." And she says, "It's my right as an American citizen. ... I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character."
She says that she saw Romney and his wife on Meet the Press, and "they seemed authentic and genuine in what they said about the country. And the need for us to be united and move forward."
Dash said Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, called her Tuesday and told her she was brave. He tweeted his thanks to her, saying, "Had a great conversation with @REALStaceyDash this afternoon. Thank you for your support!"
And there has been other positive support from fans, too. TV game show host Chuck Woolery tweeted: "Stacey Dash, a beautiful young black woman, demeaned by the left, because she is for Romney. Hollywood, It's a tough place to speak U'r mind."
Stacey Dash told Piers Morgan on his CNN show Tuesday night that her support for Mitt Romney has provoked some serious negative feedback.
The Clueless actress tweeted her political opinion on Sunday, writing: "Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future."
She was immediately slammed with Tweets attacking her. One example: "Wait Stacey Dash is voting for Romney? You get a lil money and you forget that you're black and a woman. Two things Romney hates."
And one of the latest came from Samuel L. Jackson, who said, "Wait, did Stacey Dash Really endorse Romney today?! REALLY????! Is she CRA...........??!"
Dash, 46, told Morgan last night, "I really don't understand the fury. I don't get it. ... I was shocked, really shocked. But you can't expect everyone to agree with you."
Dash explained to Morgan that she was a Democrat and voted for Barack Obama in the last election, but now, "I want the next four years to be different." And she says, "It's my right as an American citizen. ... I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character."
She says that she saw Romney and his wife on Meet the Press, and "they seemed authentic and genuine in what they said about the country. And the need for us to be united and move forward."
Dash said Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, called her Tuesday and told her she was brave. He tweeted his thanks to her, saying, "Had a great conversation with @REALStaceyDash this afternoon. Thank you for your support!"
And there has been other positive support from fans, too. TV game show host Chuck Woolery tweeted: "Stacey Dash, a beautiful young black woman, demeaned by the left, because she is for Romney. Hollywood, It's a tough place to speak U'r mind."
Monday, May 21, 2012
TEACHER SUSPENDED FOR TELLING STUDENT HE COULD BE ARRESTED FOR TALKING BADLY ABOUT OBAMA
Original Post: The Blaze
by Mike Opelka
Last Monday, a high school student in North Carolina engaged his social studies teacher in a heated debate about politics and the two leading presidential candidates. During the exchange, the teacher (an obvious Obama supporter) got very angry with the student and accused him of disrespecting the president. She even went so far as to tell the boy that he could be jailed for speaking ill of Obama.
Sarah Campbell of the Salisbury Post first reported on the story. She claims that the school district is not releasing the name of the teacher and that she is not responding to requests for public comment (although the two students identified her to the newspaper). According to Campbell’s story, the teacher will not be suspended or even face disciplinary action for what was heard on the recording. A statement from the school was released at the end of the week:
“The Rowan-Salisbury School System expects all students and employees to be respectful in the school environment and for all teachers to maintain their professionalism in the classroom. This incident should serve as an education for all teachers to stop and reflect on their interaction with students. Due to personnel and student confidentiality, we cannot discuss the matter publicly.” So, how bad was the exchange? It got fairly heated, with the teacher shouting at times. The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked:
“Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?” The teacher started to get angry and said:
“Not to my knowledge.” A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.
“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.” As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:
“You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.” Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:
“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.” The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:
“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.” Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.
“I’ll say what I want.” The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.
“Not about him, you won’t!” The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:
“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.” To which the teacher responded:
“Because he was sh-tty.” The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush. The student correctly reminded the teacher that opinions are protected, but you cannot be arrested unless you threaten the president.
Our research has not turned up a single case of anyone in America being arrested for speaking ill of former President Bush. The local newspaper story also mentioned that their discussions about the story with a political science professor could not recall the arrests that the teacher was speaking about.
Update:
We learned the name and the fate of the Social Studies teacher heard on the video posted below. Toyna Dixon-Neely is the woman heard yelling at students who dared to express negative opinions about President Obama. We also found out that Ms. Dixon-Neely’s outrageous statements may not have led to a strict punishment: the local newspaper is reporting that she has been suspended with pay. (Curiously the Huffington Post says that the teacher is on an unpaid suspension, pending the outcome of the investigation by the school board.)
The entire confrontation was recorded by a student and posted on YouTube. Listen below; slight content warning for language.
by Mike Opelka
Last Monday, a high school student in North Carolina engaged his social studies teacher in a heated debate about politics and the two leading presidential candidates. During the exchange, the teacher (an obvious Obama supporter) got very angry with the student and accused him of disrespecting the president. She even went so far as to tell the boy that he could be jailed for speaking ill of Obama.
Sarah Campbell of the Salisbury Post first reported on the story. She claims that the school district is not releasing the name of the teacher and that she is not responding to requests for public comment (although the two students identified her to the newspaper). According to Campbell’s story, the teacher will not be suspended or even face disciplinary action for what was heard on the recording. A statement from the school was released at the end of the week:
“The Rowan-Salisbury School System expects all students and employees to be respectful in the school environment and for all teachers to maintain their professionalism in the classroom. This incident should serve as an education for all teachers to stop and reflect on their interaction with students. Due to personnel and student confidentiality, we cannot discuss the matter publicly.” So, how bad was the exchange? It got fairly heated, with the teacher shouting at times. The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked:
“Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?” The teacher started to get angry and said:
“Not to my knowledge.” A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.
“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.” As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:
“You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.” Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:
“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.” The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:
“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.” Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.
“I’ll say what I want.” The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.
“Not about him, you won’t!” The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:
“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.” To which the teacher responded:
“Because he was sh-tty.” The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush. The student correctly reminded the teacher that opinions are protected, but you cannot be arrested unless you threaten the president.
Our research has not turned up a single case of anyone in America being arrested for speaking ill of former President Bush. The local newspaper story also mentioned that their discussions about the story with a political science professor could not recall the arrests that the teacher was speaking about.
Update:
We learned the name and the fate of the Social Studies teacher heard on the video posted below. Toyna Dixon-Neely is the woman heard yelling at students who dared to express negative opinions about President Obama. We also found out that Ms. Dixon-Neely’s outrageous statements may not have led to a strict punishment: the local newspaper is reporting that she has been suspended with pay. (Curiously the Huffington Post says that the teacher is on an unpaid suspension, pending the outcome of the investigation by the school board.)
The entire confrontation was recorded by a student and posted on YouTube. Listen below; slight content warning for language.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Lincoln Republican abolishes slavery, Obama Democrat brings it back
Original Post: ABC News
"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., shot down the Obama administration’s compromise on contraception Sunday, discounting the plan that requires insurance companies, instead of religious hospitals or universities, provide access to free birth control under the new health care law as nothing more than an “accounting trick.” “This thing is a distinction without a difference,” Ryan told me Sunday on “This Week.” “It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise...”
There are so many things wrong with Obama here.
1)I thought Congress already wrote the bill. How can he now offer a compromise? How can the president change the terms of this bill at a whim? I thought we had a separation of powers.
2)Forcing Catholics to provide contraception is against their doctrine and clearly violates the 1st amendment.
3)The Church put out a letter coming out against this change. Obama ordered the Chaplains in the army not to read this letter. A second violation of the first amendment.
4)Obama's "compromise" requires the insurance companies to produce this product for free. What is it called when you force someone to work and you don't pay them? It's slavery. We fought a war over it.
Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrat Barack Obama re-instituted it.
"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., shot down the Obama administration’s compromise on contraception Sunday, discounting the plan that requires insurance companies, instead of religious hospitals or universities, provide access to free birth control under the new health care law as nothing more than an “accounting trick.” “This thing is a distinction without a difference,” Ryan told me Sunday on “This Week.” “It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise...”
There are so many things wrong with Obama here.
1)I thought Congress already wrote the bill. How can he now offer a compromise? How can the president change the terms of this bill at a whim? I thought we had a separation of powers.
2)Forcing Catholics to provide contraception is against their doctrine and clearly violates the 1st amendment.
3)The Church put out a letter coming out against this change. Obama ordered the Chaplains in the army not to read this letter. A second violation of the first amendment.
4)Obama's "compromise" requires the insurance companies to produce this product for free. What is it called when you force someone to work and you don't pay them? It's slavery. We fought a war over it.
Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrat Barack Obama re-instituted it.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Reporter threatened with credential removal for daring to question Joe Biden
Original Post: Daily Caller
Vice President Joe Biden’s office has asked the U.S. Senate Press Gallery to investigate conservative journalist Jason Mattera’s tactics during a recent interview, a process that could result in his press credentials being revoked, The Daily Caller has learned.
Mattera, the editor of Human Events and a widely known video ambush interviewer, caught Biden by surprise after asking if he would pose together for a joint picture. While embracing the vice president for the photo, Mattera asked Biden if he “regret[s] using a rape reference to describe Republican opposition to the president’s bill.”
After pausing for a moment during which he appears shocked, Biden attempted to defend his comments.
“I didn’t use — no, no, no,” Biden told Mattera amid a crowd of onlookers on Capitol Hill. “What I said — let’s get it straight, guy, don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.”
“I said rape was up three times in Flint, [Mich.],” Biden continued. “There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder’s up, rape is up and burglary’s up. That’s exactly what I said.”
Biden, it turns out, was incorrect. The Washington Post’s fact-checker blog gave him “four Pinocchios,” the worst possible rating it can give to politicians for incorrect statements. FactCheck.org also debunked Biden’s assertions. Those fact checkers used statistics different from the ones Biden was provided.
Biden apparently got his statistics from the City of Flint, and the city stands by its statistics according to Public Safety Director Chief Alvern Lock. In an October 20 statement, Lock said there are discrepancies between different law enforcement agencies’ statistics and crime definitions — something that he said should account for the inconsistencies. “The discrepancies with the FBI and other sources reveal the differences in how crimes can be counted and categorized, based on different criteria,” Lock said.
Even so, Mattera caught Biden playing politics with sketchy numbers. And now the Vice President’s staff is looking for a fight with Mattera instead of correcting the widespread misunderstandings Biden created.
Mattera told The Daily Caller that team Biden’s attempt to discredit him this week is just an effort to distract from how the Vice President’s incorrect. “They’re suggesting that my credentials get yanked and I be investigated for asking a completely legitimate question,” Mattera said in a phone interview. “The administration is just whining and complaining like little toddlers because they’ve gotten their wrists slapped now on multiple occasions for making the suggestion that Republicans are enabling rape and violent crimes because they won’t pass another stimulus package.”
“This is a thug administration in action,” Mattera added. “This is the Chicago way and they can bring it on. Bring it on. I’m a credentialed member of the media and I have a little something-something called the First Amendment on my side.”
According to The Hill newspaper, Biden aides are asking whether any Senate rules were broken during the exchange. The chairwoman of the Gallery’s standing committee of correspondents, a group of five journalists who oversee press accreditation on Capitol Hill, told the newspaper that the group is considering the issue and that it is under review.
“We’re aware of the concerns,” standing committee chairwoman Heather Rothman said, according to The Hill. “It’s being discussed. We’re aware this occurred and the vice president’s office [has made] contact.”
Rothman hasn’t returned TheDC’s requests for more details or information. Biden wouldn’t comment on the record. The Senate Press Gallery wouldn’t comment for The Hill’s story and hasn’t returned TheDC’s requests for comment.
Because none of those parties are answering any questions, it’s unclear what specific rules Biden’s office is alleging Mattera broke. Mattera said these allegations are nothing more than a deflection tactic.
“The Obama administration got caught in a major lie,” he said. “They’re now being called out on it and they’re going after the journalist who got the ball rolling. This is another attempt to destroy their opponents, instead of correcting their facts in their previous statements.”
Proving that Mattera’s “tactics” while interviewing Biden were unethical will be difficult. Mattera never misrepresented himself, was wearing his press credential badge the entire time, and told Biden’s staffers who he was and where he worked.
Mattera adds that it’s not abnormal for journalists to pose for photos with politicians, and that asking a tough question that would normally go unanswered is par for the course.
“Journalists have always used creative ways to get politicians to answer honestly,” Mattera said. “and that’s what I do. I look for ways to get politicians to give me candid answers. I don’t want the spin, I don’t them to go and consult with their messaging team and have the talking points – I get the gut reaction. And, here, Biden’s gut reaction was undignified for the Vice President of the United States.”
As of Tuesday morning, Mattera said no one from the Senate Press Gallery has contacted him about Biden’s allegations. He predicted that the agency will promptly dismiss the accusations against him.
“I’m not worried,” Mattera said. “They’re not going to give this any type of legitimacy.”
Reporter who bugged Biden: ‘They’re suggesting that my credentials get yanked’ for ‘rape’ question
Vice President Joe Biden’s office has asked the U.S. Senate Press Gallery to investigate conservative journalist Jason Mattera’s tactics during a recent interview, a process that could result in his press credentials being revoked, The Daily Caller has learned.
Mattera, the editor of Human Events and a widely known video ambush interviewer, caught Biden by surprise after asking if he would pose together for a joint picture. While embracing the vice president for the photo, Mattera asked Biden if he “regret[s] using a rape reference to describe Republican opposition to the president’s bill.”
After pausing for a moment during which he appears shocked, Biden attempted to defend his comments.
“I didn’t use — no, no, no,” Biden told Mattera amid a crowd of onlookers on Capitol Hill. “What I said — let’s get it straight, guy, don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.”
“I said rape was up three times in Flint, [Mich.],” Biden continued. “There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder’s up, rape is up and burglary’s up. That’s exactly what I said.”
Biden, it turns out, was incorrect. The Washington Post’s fact-checker blog gave him “four Pinocchios,” the worst possible rating it can give to politicians for incorrect statements. FactCheck.org also debunked Biden’s assertions. Those fact checkers used statistics different from the ones Biden was provided.
Biden apparently got his statistics from the City of Flint, and the city stands by its statistics according to Public Safety Director Chief Alvern Lock. In an October 20 statement, Lock said there are discrepancies between different law enforcement agencies’ statistics and crime definitions — something that he said should account for the inconsistencies. “The discrepancies with the FBI and other sources reveal the differences in how crimes can be counted and categorized, based on different criteria,” Lock said.
Even so, Mattera caught Biden playing politics with sketchy numbers. And now the Vice President’s staff is looking for a fight with Mattera instead of correcting the widespread misunderstandings Biden created.
Mattera told The Daily Caller that team Biden’s attempt to discredit him this week is just an effort to distract from how the Vice President’s incorrect. “They’re suggesting that my credentials get yanked and I be investigated for asking a completely legitimate question,” Mattera said in a phone interview. “The administration is just whining and complaining like little toddlers because they’ve gotten their wrists slapped now on multiple occasions for making the suggestion that Republicans are enabling rape and violent crimes because they won’t pass another stimulus package.”
“This is a thug administration in action,” Mattera added. “This is the Chicago way and they can bring it on. Bring it on. I’m a credentialed member of the media and I have a little something-something called the First Amendment on my side.”
According to The Hill newspaper, Biden aides are asking whether any Senate rules were broken during the exchange. The chairwoman of the Gallery’s standing committee of correspondents, a group of five journalists who oversee press accreditation on Capitol Hill, told the newspaper that the group is considering the issue and that it is under review.
“We’re aware of the concerns,” standing committee chairwoman Heather Rothman said, according to The Hill. “It’s being discussed. We’re aware this occurred and the vice president’s office [has made] contact.”
Rothman hasn’t returned TheDC’s requests for more details or information. Biden wouldn’t comment on the record. The Senate Press Gallery wouldn’t comment for The Hill’s story and hasn’t returned TheDC’s requests for comment.
Because none of those parties are answering any questions, it’s unclear what specific rules Biden’s office is alleging Mattera broke. Mattera said these allegations are nothing more than a deflection tactic.
“The Obama administration got caught in a major lie,” he said. “They’re now being called out on it and they’re going after the journalist who got the ball rolling. This is another attempt to destroy their opponents, instead of correcting their facts in their previous statements.”
Proving that Mattera’s “tactics” while interviewing Biden were unethical will be difficult. Mattera never misrepresented himself, was wearing his press credential badge the entire time, and told Biden’s staffers who he was and where he worked.
Mattera adds that it’s not abnormal for journalists to pose for photos with politicians, and that asking a tough question that would normally go unanswered is par for the course.
“Journalists have always used creative ways to get politicians to answer honestly,” Mattera said. “and that’s what I do. I look for ways to get politicians to give me candid answers. I don’t want the spin, I don’t them to go and consult with their messaging team and have the talking points – I get the gut reaction. And, here, Biden’s gut reaction was undignified for the Vice President of the United States.”
As of Tuesday morning, Mattera said no one from the Senate Press Gallery has contacted him about Biden’s allegations. He predicted that the agency will promptly dismiss the accusations against him.
“I’m not worried,” Mattera said. “They’re not going to give this any type of legitimacy.”
Saturday, August 6, 2011
John Kerry tries to use media to censer TEA party free speech
Original Post: Real Clear Politics
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday that the media has the responsibility to not give equal time or credence to the Tea Party's views:
SEN. JOHN KERRY: "And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual." It's clearly an absurd notion and you know it is because I say so. Big Brother knows what's best and to think otherwise is to be guilty of thoughtcrime.
"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"
John Kerry: Media Has "Responsibility" To "Not Give Equal Time" To Tea Party
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday that the media has the responsibility to not give equal time or credence to the Tea Party's views:
SEN. JOHN KERRY: "And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual." It's clearly an absurd notion and you know it is because I say so. Big Brother knows what's best and to think otherwise is to be guilty of thoughtcrime.
"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"
Friday, April 1, 2011
Marquette Warrior Blogger Threatened by Provost, Dean and Department Chair
Original Post: MU Warrior
We just got out of a meeting with Provost John Pauly, interim Arts & Sciences Dean Phil Rossi, and Political Science Department Chair Barry McCormick.
This was the meeting we were summoned to by Pauly.
Pauly, in an e-mail to us, said the meeting was about “some of the ongoing potential conflicts between your role as Marquette professor and employee, and independent blogger-journalist.”
The bottom line: all three – Pauly, Rossi and McCormick – want us to entirely stop blogging about student organizations.
Pauly claimed to have no problem with our blogging about faculty and administrators, but claimed our blogging about student affairs has been out of line. How much of this was a genuine concern (some of it probably was) and how much was the result of an ideological bias from liberal administrators two a conservative blogger (there was almost certainly some of that too) we can’t say.
Two specific instances were mentioned. First, we called the listed home number of a student, talked to (apparently) her father and left a polite message asking for a return call, explaining that we were working on a blog post about The Vagina Monologues (the student was listed as the Marquette contact on vday.org). Apparently, the student’s parents freaked. All three administrators (Pauly, Rossi and McCormick) condemned the call saying that faculty should never call the parents of students. They said that the parents should have been in Fr. Wild’s office loudly complaining about it.
We replied that we were calling the listed number of the student (and had no way of knowing that she was living with her parents), and that’s it’s standard practice for a journalist to call a potential source at home. But Pauly, Rossi and McCormick explicitly stated that we should somehow have known that the parents would freak. We were accused of merely offering “rationalizations.”
All thee insisted that we don’t have any of the prerogatives of a journalist, since the role of a professor trumps that of a faculty blogger.
The other issue raised was the fact that we had mentioned a student’s research paper, and were accused of “criticizing” it. In reality, we did not mention the student’s name, and the point of the blog post was that “‘gender studies’ has been added to ‘women’s studies’ signals a move toward a homosexual emphasis, as shown by one of the papers completed by a WGST fellow this summer . . . .” The blog post was, quite simply, a comment on the fact that the Women’s and Gender Studies program has begun to slip “queer studies” into the university.
Pauly, Rossi and McCormick lamely replied that people could find the name of the student (we included the title of the paper, which could be googled), and that some people knew that we had supposedly “criticized the student.” In fact, nothing was said that was favorable or unfavorable about the student.
A Sandbox?
McCormick, using a metaphor that was supremely insulting to students, insisted that student activities are a “sandbox,” and that faculty should never comment on what student organizations do.
We pointed out that, in the issues they brought up, Marquette as an institution had been the issue. The Vagina Monologues will be sponsored by Social and Cultural Sciences, and the post that “criticized student research” was about the Women’s and Gender Studies Program.
We further pointed out that when students do high-profile public things, there is a legitimate news interest in what they do. In fact, it serves students well to learn that when they do highly visible controversial public things in some official role, they might get criticized.
Further, what student organizations do has consequences for the University. When Fr. Wild announced that Marquette is going to provide domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian couples, he explicitly cited a resolution calling for that from Marquette University Student Government. If student organizations can affect Marquette University policy, it’s hard to see how they should be exempt from scrutiny.
As the meeting moved on, Rossi and McCormick became more ad hominem, Rossi accusing us of having a “blind spot,” and McCormick asserting that nobody he knew felt that our blogging about student organizations was acceptable. Since we’ve gotten multiple supporting e-mails, that says more about McCormick’s circle of friends than about what “everybody believes.”
All three implied (and sometimes stated) that we had been guilty of some violation of professional ethics, but could not explain what that would be, beyond McCormick’s “sandbox” metaphor, and the general notion that faculty should never publicly say anything negative about a student, even a student in a very public role doing something controversial.
We were willing to make only one concession: we assured the group that we would be more careful in the future about mentioning student’s names. (It typically isn’t that significant who the student is anyway.) But that wasn’t enough.
They hang tough with the position that we should never comment on student affairs, and we were threatened by both Pauly and McCormick saying that we would “be here [in a meeting like this] again” if we persisted in blogging about the activities of student groups.
Needless to say, we will continue to blog about activities on campus, and when the actions of student organizations have substantial news interest, we will report them.
We just got out of a meeting with Provost John Pauly, interim Arts & Sciences Dean Phil Rossi, and Political Science Department Chair Barry McCormick.
This was the meeting we were summoned to by Pauly.
Pauly, in an e-mail to us, said the meeting was about “some of the ongoing potential conflicts between your role as Marquette professor and employee, and independent blogger-journalist.”
The bottom line: all three – Pauly, Rossi and McCormick – want us to entirely stop blogging about student organizations.
Pauly claimed to have no problem with our blogging about faculty and administrators, but claimed our blogging about student affairs has been out of line. How much of this was a genuine concern (some of it probably was) and how much was the result of an ideological bias from liberal administrators two a conservative blogger (there was almost certainly some of that too) we can’t say.
Two specific instances were mentioned. First, we called the listed home number of a student, talked to (apparently) her father and left a polite message asking for a return call, explaining that we were working on a blog post about The Vagina Monologues (the student was listed as the Marquette contact on vday.org). Apparently, the student’s parents freaked. All three administrators (Pauly, Rossi and McCormick) condemned the call saying that faculty should never call the parents of students. They said that the parents should have been in Fr. Wild’s office loudly complaining about it.
We replied that we were calling the listed number of the student (and had no way of knowing that she was living with her parents), and that’s it’s standard practice for a journalist to call a potential source at home. But Pauly, Rossi and McCormick explicitly stated that we should somehow have known that the parents would freak. We were accused of merely offering “rationalizations.”
All thee insisted that we don’t have any of the prerogatives of a journalist, since the role of a professor trumps that of a faculty blogger.
The other issue raised was the fact that we had mentioned a student’s research paper, and were accused of “criticizing” it. In reality, we did not mention the student’s name, and the point of the blog post was that “‘gender studies’ has been added to ‘women’s studies’ signals a move toward a homosexual emphasis, as shown by one of the papers completed by a WGST fellow this summer . . . .” The blog post was, quite simply, a comment on the fact that the Women’s and Gender Studies program has begun to slip “queer studies” into the university.
Pauly, Rossi and McCormick lamely replied that people could find the name of the student (we included the title of the paper, which could be googled), and that some people knew that we had supposedly “criticized the student.” In fact, nothing was said that was favorable or unfavorable about the student.
A Sandbox?
McCormick, using a metaphor that was supremely insulting to students, insisted that student activities are a “sandbox,” and that faculty should never comment on what student organizations do.
We pointed out that, in the issues they brought up, Marquette as an institution had been the issue. The Vagina Monologues will be sponsored by Social and Cultural Sciences, and the post that “criticized student research” was about the Women’s and Gender Studies Program.
We further pointed out that when students do high-profile public things, there is a legitimate news interest in what they do. In fact, it serves students well to learn that when they do highly visible controversial public things in some official role, they might get criticized.
Further, what student organizations do has consequences for the University. When Fr. Wild announced that Marquette is going to provide domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian couples, he explicitly cited a resolution calling for that from Marquette University Student Government. If student organizations can affect Marquette University policy, it’s hard to see how they should be exempt from scrutiny.
As the meeting moved on, Rossi and McCormick became more ad hominem, Rossi accusing us of having a “blind spot,” and McCormick asserting that nobody he knew felt that our blogging about student organizations was acceptable. Since we’ve gotten multiple supporting e-mails, that says more about McCormick’s circle of friends than about what “everybody believes.”
All three implied (and sometimes stated) that we had been guilty of some violation of professional ethics, but could not explain what that would be, beyond McCormick’s “sandbox” metaphor, and the general notion that faculty should never publicly say anything negative about a student, even a student in a very public role doing something controversial.
We were willing to make only one concession: we assured the group that we would be more careful in the future about mentioning student’s names. (It typically isn’t that significant who the student is anyway.) But that wasn’t enough.
They hang tough with the position that we should never comment on student affairs, and we were threatened by both Pauly and McCormick saying that we would “be here [in a meeting like this] again” if we persisted in blogging about the activities of student groups.
Needless to say, we will continue to blog about activities on campus, and when the actions of student organizations have substantial news interest, we will report them.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Proposed Law Would Ban Infant Circumcisions in San Francisco
Original Post: Yahoo
A self-described "human rights activist" is gathering signatures in San Francisco for a measure on the November ballot to ban circumcisions of infants. The measure very likely would run into
freedom of religion objections if enacted.
"San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield said Thursday he is 'on track' to have enough signatures to place his proposed measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to 'circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.'"
Circumcisions have been routinely done for most newborn infants in the United States for health reasons, though it is no longer recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics or American Medical Association. Debate over the health benefits (mitigation of STDs, etc) vs. the risks (pain and sexual dysfunction) are ongoing.
More importantly, two major world religions require that babies born in their faiths be circumcised. Jewish infants are circumcised in the eighth day of life by a "mohel" in a solemn ceremony called the "bris" in accordance with Jewish law as set down in the Book of Genesis. In Islam, while not mentioned in the Koran, circumcision is widely practiced and is considered mandatory by many Muslims.
Oddly enough, the new law would not ban the practice of female circumcision, a pernicious practice that involves the genital mutilation of some female Muslim babies that destroys their ability to feel sexual pleasure in adult life.
There does not seem to be any provision for a religious exemption in the proposed anti-circumcision law. The fine for circumcising an infant would be $1,000.
The principle behind the anti-circumcision law, that circumcising an infant is a violation of the baby's human autonomy, is something of a mischievous doctrine that could be applied to all sorts of things. Would not
vaccinations for infants, widely practiced and recommended, be banned because a baby cannot consent to being given uncomfortable shots? True, the notion that some vaccinations can cause autism has been proved to be a hoax, but that may not stop busy bodies from searching for all sorts of things parents cause to happen to their kids in order to ban them.
The fact that children are too immature to consent to most things is the reason why they have at least one parent to make that decision for them. This principle is enshrined in the common law of virtually every culture on Earth in recognition of basic facts of human biology.
One ought to invoke the idea of choice, usually raised when the question of abortion is raised, and suggest that the question to circumcise or not is best decided between a parent and his or her pediatrician. The government has no business in the matter.
Source: San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot, Joshua Sabatini, San Francisco Examiner, February 18th, 2011
A self-described "human rights activist" is gathering signatures in San Francisco for a measure on the November ballot to ban circumcisions of infants. The measure very likely would run into
freedom of religion objections if enacted.
"San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield said Thursday he is 'on track' to have enough signatures to place his proposed measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to 'circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.'"
Circumcisions have been routinely done for most newborn infants in the United States for health reasons, though it is no longer recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics or American Medical Association. Debate over the health benefits (mitigation of STDs, etc) vs. the risks (pain and sexual dysfunction) are ongoing.
More importantly, two major world religions require that babies born in their faiths be circumcised. Jewish infants are circumcised in the eighth day of life by a "mohel" in a solemn ceremony called the "bris" in accordance with Jewish law as set down in the Book of Genesis. In Islam, while not mentioned in the Koran, circumcision is widely practiced and is considered mandatory by many Muslims.
Oddly enough, the new law would not ban the practice of female circumcision, a pernicious practice that involves the genital mutilation of some female Muslim babies that destroys their ability to feel sexual pleasure in adult life.
There does not seem to be any provision for a religious exemption in the proposed anti-circumcision law. The fine for circumcising an infant would be $1,000.
The principle behind the anti-circumcision law, that circumcising an infant is a violation of the baby's human autonomy, is something of a mischievous doctrine that could be applied to all sorts of things. Would not
vaccinations for infants, widely practiced and recommended, be banned because a baby cannot consent to being given uncomfortable shots? True, the notion that some vaccinations can cause autism has been proved to be a hoax, but that may not stop busy bodies from searching for all sorts of things parents cause to happen to their kids in order to ban them.
The fact that children are too immature to consent to most things is the reason why they have at least one parent to make that decision for them. This principle is enshrined in the common law of virtually every culture on Earth in recognition of basic facts of human biology.
One ought to invoke the idea of choice, usually raised when the question of abortion is raised, and suggest that the question to circumcise or not is best decided between a parent and his or her pediatrician. The government has no business in the matter.
Source: San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot, Joshua Sabatini, San Francisco Examiner, February 18th, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’
Original Post: Torrent Freak
he US Government has yet again shuttered several domain names this week. The Department of Justice and Homeland Security’s ICE office proudly announced that they had seized domains related to counterfeit goods and child pornography. What they failed to mention, however, is that one of the targeted domains belongs to a free DNS provider, and that 84,000 websites were wrongfully accused of links to child pornography crimes.
As part of “Operation Save Our Children” ICE’s Cyber Crimes Center has again seized several domain names, but not without making a huge error. Last Friday, thousands of site owners were surprised by a rather worrying banner that was placed on their domain.
“Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution,” was the worrying message they read on their websites.
As with previous seizures, ICE convinced a District Court judge to sign a seizure warrant, and then contacted the domain registries to point the domains in question to a server that hosts the warning message. However, somewhere in this process a mistake was made and as a result the domain of a large DNS service provider was seized.
The domain in question is mooo.com, which belongs to the DNS provider FreeDNS. It is the most popular shared domain at afraid.org and as a result of the authorities’ actions a massive 84,000 subdomains were wrongfully seized as well. All sites were redirected to the banner below.
This banner was visible on the 84,000 sites
The FreeDNS owner was taken by surprise and quickly released the following statement on their website. “Freedns.afraid.org has never allowed this type of abuse of its DNS service. We are working to get the issue sorted as quickly as possible.”
Eventually, on Sunday the domain seizure was reverted and the subdomains slowly started to point to the old sites again instead of the accusatory banner. However, since the DNS entries have to propagate, it took another 3 days before the images disappeared completely.
Most of the subdomains in question are personal sites and sites of small businesses. A search on Bing still shows how innocent sites were claimed to promote child pornography. A rather damaging accusation, which scared and upset many of the site’s owners.
One of the customers quickly went out to assure visitors that his site was not involved in any of the alleged crimes.
“You can rest assured that I have not and would never be found to be trafficking in such distasteful and horrific content. A little sleuthing shows that the whole of the mooo.com TLD is impacted. At first, the legitimacy of the alerts seems to be questionable — after all, what reputable agency would display their warning in a fancily formatted image referenced by the underlying HTML? I wouldn’t expect to see that.”
Even at the time of writing people can still replicate the effect by adding “74.81.170.110 mooo.com” to their hosts file as the authorities have not dropped the domain pointer yet. Adding mooo.com will produce a different image than picking a random domain (child porn vs. copyright), which confirms the mistake.
Although it is not clear where this massive error was made, and who’s responsible for it, the Department of Homeland security is conveniently sweeping it under the rug. In a press release that went out a few hours ago the authorities were clearly proud of themselves for taking down 10 domain names.
However, DHS conveniently failed to mention that 84,000 websites were wrongfully taken down in the process, shaming thousands of people in the process.
“Each year, far too many children fall prey to sexual predators and all too often, these heinous acts are recorded in photos and on video and released on the Internet,” Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano commented.
“DHS is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to shut down websites that promote child pornography to protect these children from further victimization,” she added.
A noble initiative, but one that went wrong, badly. The above failure again shows that the seizure process is a flawed one, as has been shown several times before in earlier copyright infringement sweeps. If the Government would only allow for due process to take place, this and other mistakes wouldn’t have been made.
he US Government has yet again shuttered several domain names this week. The Department of Justice and Homeland Security’s ICE office proudly announced that they had seized domains related to counterfeit goods and child pornography. What they failed to mention, however, is that one of the targeted domains belongs to a free DNS provider, and that 84,000 websites were wrongfully accused of links to child pornography crimes.
As part of “Operation Save Our Children” ICE’s Cyber Crimes Center has again seized several domain names, but not without making a huge error. Last Friday, thousands of site owners were surprised by a rather worrying banner that was placed on their domain.
“Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution,” was the worrying message they read on their websites.
As with previous seizures, ICE convinced a District Court judge to sign a seizure warrant, and then contacted the domain registries to point the domains in question to a server that hosts the warning message. However, somewhere in this process a mistake was made and as a result the domain of a large DNS service provider was seized.
The domain in question is mooo.com, which belongs to the DNS provider FreeDNS. It is the most popular shared domain at afraid.org and as a result of the authorities’ actions a massive 84,000 subdomains were wrongfully seized as well. All sites were redirected to the banner below.
This banner was visible on the 84,000 sites
The FreeDNS owner was taken by surprise and quickly released the following statement on their website. “Freedns.afraid.org has never allowed this type of abuse of its DNS service. We are working to get the issue sorted as quickly as possible.”
Eventually, on Sunday the domain seizure was reverted and the subdomains slowly started to point to the old sites again instead of the accusatory banner. However, since the DNS entries have to propagate, it took another 3 days before the images disappeared completely.
Most of the subdomains in question are personal sites and sites of small businesses. A search on Bing still shows how innocent sites were claimed to promote child pornography. A rather damaging accusation, which scared and upset many of the site’s owners.
One of the customers quickly went out to assure visitors that his site was not involved in any of the alleged crimes.
“You can rest assured that I have not and would never be found to be trafficking in such distasteful and horrific content. A little sleuthing shows that the whole of the mooo.com TLD is impacted. At first, the legitimacy of the alerts seems to be questionable — after all, what reputable agency would display their warning in a fancily formatted image referenced by the underlying HTML? I wouldn’t expect to see that.”
Even at the time of writing people can still replicate the effect by adding “74.81.170.110 mooo.com” to their hosts file as the authorities have not dropped the domain pointer yet. Adding mooo.com will produce a different image than picking a random domain (child porn vs. copyright), which confirms the mistake.
Although it is not clear where this massive error was made, and who’s responsible for it, the Department of Homeland security is conveniently sweeping it under the rug. In a press release that went out a few hours ago the authorities were clearly proud of themselves for taking down 10 domain names.
However, DHS conveniently failed to mention that 84,000 websites were wrongfully taken down in the process, shaming thousands of people in the process.
“Each year, far too many children fall prey to sexual predators and all too often, these heinous acts are recorded in photos and on video and released on the Internet,” Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano commented.
“DHS is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to shut down websites that promote child pornography to protect these children from further victimization,” she added.
A noble initiative, but one that went wrong, badly. The above failure again shows that the seizure process is a flawed one, as has been shown several times before in earlier copyright infringement sweeps. If the Government would only allow for due process to take place, this and other mistakes wouldn’t have been made.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Secret Service embarrised to investigate political dissent
Jacob Volkmann, UFC fighter, gets visit from Secret Service after saying he wants to fight Obama
Original Post: NY Daily News
By Nina Mandell
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
John McCain's not the only one in Washington a little down on Ultimate Fighting.
The Secret Service doesn't seem to be big fans either.
Jacob Volkmann, a UFC lightweight, got a visit from the agency after declaring in a post-fight interview that he wants to fight President Obama because he disagrees with his health care policy.
What happened next shocked the 30-year-old Minnesota-based fighter.
After an unknown source reported his remarks to the Secret Service (who decided it was legit enough for a follow up), an officer was sent to pay Volkmann a visit, he told MMA Weekly.
When the officer showed up on Tuesday, Volkmann was busy coaching a youth practice.
"One of the other coaches that was helping me out, they said there was a cop and another guy out there waiting for me," he told the website.
When he went outside, a Secret Service agent was waiting -- with a picture of the fighter and his exact quotes on a piece of paper.
"He was like 'is this what you said?' and I said, 'yes it is.' He's like 'I want to let you know I'm a little embarrassed for coming here and doing this because obviously nothing happened.' He actually apologized for coming, but he had to come. He wanted to make sure I wasn't going to D.C to hurt the President," Volkmann said.
Volkmann told the website he thinks that a member of Obama's campaign team sent him an email threatening to tell the Secret Service and FBI about his controversial remarks.
But the outspoken fighter, who works as a chiropractor when he doesn't have people in choke holds, said he doesn't mind speaking out on what he believes in -- and won't let a visit from the Secret Service stop him.
"People were misunderstanding the point of view I was going for with the health care plan," he told MMA Weekly. "I'm thinking about the provider, I'm a chiropractor, so I'm thinking about my point of view, not everyone getting insurance. They don't have to worry about getting denied, which is good I guess, just not good for health care providers."
Original Post: NY Daily News
By Nina Mandell
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
John McCain's not the only one in Washington a little down on Ultimate Fighting.
The Secret Service doesn't seem to be big fans either.
Jacob Volkmann, a UFC lightweight, got a visit from the agency after declaring in a post-fight interview that he wants to fight President Obama because he disagrees with his health care policy.
What happened next shocked the 30-year-old Minnesota-based fighter.
After an unknown source reported his remarks to the Secret Service (who decided it was legit enough for a follow up), an officer was sent to pay Volkmann a visit, he told MMA Weekly.
When the officer showed up on Tuesday, Volkmann was busy coaching a youth practice.
"One of the other coaches that was helping me out, they said there was a cop and another guy out there waiting for me," he told the website.
When he went outside, a Secret Service agent was waiting -- with a picture of the fighter and his exact quotes on a piece of paper.
"He was like 'is this what you said?' and I said, 'yes it is.' He's like 'I want to let you know I'm a little embarrassed for coming here and doing this because obviously nothing happened.' He actually apologized for coming, but he had to come. He wanted to make sure I wasn't going to D.C to hurt the President," Volkmann said.
Volkmann told the website he thinks that a member of Obama's campaign team sent him an email threatening to tell the Secret Service and FBI about his controversial remarks.
But the outspoken fighter, who works as a chiropractor when he doesn't have people in choke holds, said he doesn't mind speaking out on what he believes in -- and won't let a visit from the Secret Service stop him.
"People were misunderstanding the point of view I was going for with the health care plan," he told MMA Weekly. "I'm thinking about the provider, I'm a chiropractor, so I'm thinking about my point of view, not everyone getting insurance. They don't have to worry about getting denied, which is good I guess, just not good for health care providers."
Monday, November 22, 2010
Public School Bans U.S. Flag To Avoid “Racial Tension”
Original Post: Judicial Watch
A public middle school student in central California was forced to take an American flag off his bike because administrators feared Old Glory would ignite “racial tension”among Hispanic students.
The enraging violation of the teenager’s First Amendment right took place this week in Stanislaus County’s Denair Unified School District, where officials say Mexican flags brought in by Hispanic students created racial tension on Cinco de Mayo, the holiday that commemorates Mexico’s victory over France in the Battle of Puebla.
To avoid similar problems, a boy at Denair Middle School was forced to put away an American flag displayed on his bike to support war heroes, including some in his family, on Veterans Day week. The 13-year-old was ordered to remove it after students at his U.S. taxpayer-financed school complained, according to officials quoted in a local news report. All this while an American flag flaps in the wind on campus as is the case at practically all of the nation’s public schools.
Here is the official explanation offered by the district’s superintendant, Edward Parraz: "Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Who would have ever imagined that the Stars and Stripes would be considered offensive on its own soil and in a government-financed institution, no less? An acclaimed educational center dedicated to studying the First Amendment (Vanderbilt University’s First Amendment Center), points out that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling allows school officials to ban student expression if they can reasonably forecast that the speech or display will cause substantial disruption.
However, addressing this incident, one of its First Amendment scholars asks: “Since when is honoring Veterans Day with the display of the American flag disruptive?” He goes on to suggest that schools facing tensions over cultural differences can teach all students that disruptions over displays such as flags on bikes or backpacks will not be tolerated rather than banning the expression.
A public middle school student in central California was forced to take an American flag off his bike because administrators feared Old Glory would ignite “racial tension”among Hispanic students.
The enraging violation of the teenager’s First Amendment right took place this week in Stanislaus County’s Denair Unified School District, where officials say Mexican flags brought in by Hispanic students created racial tension on Cinco de Mayo, the holiday that commemorates Mexico’s victory over France in the Battle of Puebla.
To avoid similar problems, a boy at Denair Middle School was forced to put away an American flag displayed on his bike to support war heroes, including some in his family, on Veterans Day week. The 13-year-old was ordered to remove it after students at his U.S. taxpayer-financed school complained, according to officials quoted in a local news report. All this while an American flag flaps in the wind on campus as is the case at practically all of the nation’s public schools.
Here is the official explanation offered by the district’s superintendant, Edward Parraz: "Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Who would have ever imagined that the Stars and Stripes would be considered offensive on its own soil and in a government-financed institution, no less? An acclaimed educational center dedicated to studying the First Amendment (Vanderbilt University’s First Amendment Center), points out that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling allows school officials to ban student expression if they can reasonably forecast that the speech or display will cause substantial disruption.
However, addressing this incident, one of its First Amendment scholars asks: “Since when is honoring Veterans Day with the display of the American flag disruptive?” He goes on to suggest that schools facing tensions over cultural differences can teach all students that disruptions over displays such as flags on bikes or backpacks will not be tolerated rather than banning the expression.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller wants to kill free speech
Original Post: Huffington Post
Senator Rockefeller Wants FCC To 'End' Fox News, MSNBC
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC:
More than just retransmission consent ails our television markets. We need new catalysts for quality news and entertainment programming. I hunger for quality news. I'm tired of the right and the left. There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It'd be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.
As the New York Times points out, "There is little the Federal Communications Commission can say about Fox News or MSNBC since the channels are on cable, not delivered over the broadcast airwaves."
Rockefeller opened his remarks with a stinging rebuke of the 24-hour news cycle and the blurring of news and entertainment:
When it comes to developing content, our entertainment machine is too often in a race to the bottom. In fact, it is in a race to the bottom. Getting close. Even worse, our news media has all but surrendered to the forces of entertainment. And much of our news media is entertainment as opposed to news. Instead of a watchdog that is a check on the excesses of government and business, we have the endless barking of a 24-hour news cycle. We have journalism that is always ravenous for the next rumor, but insufficiently hungry for the facts that can nourish something called our democracy. As citizens, we are paying one heck of a price in the dumbing down of America. You're probably responsible for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)