CNN rediscovers reporting, covers Tea Party rallies

One of the worst-kept secrets in journalism is that the major news organizations rarely engage in any actual reporting. The majority of the news they report is lifted from the wire services or from another news agency. Rather than spend the time and money to send a human reporter to check facts and interview people, it’s much easier to depend on what their colleagues have already done. The trouble with this is that any errors or bias in the original story get repeated, reflected and magnified on down the line until they attain the status of fact.

So it has been with coverage of the Tea Party movement. Most new desks have been quick to pick up on the reports of isolated racist comments and signs and reflect that as characteristic of the movement as a whole, without ever sending a reporter to a Tea Party rally.

With this in mind, I applaud CNN for bucking the trend and sending reporter and producer Shannon Travis to attend several Tea Party rallies in Utah and Colorado. Travis, as it happens, is African-American, and his reporting makes clear that he did not find anything like a racist or hate-filled atmosphere at the Tea Party events: “Almost everyone I met was welcoming…Some of them e-mailed me after my trip, thanking our crew for fairly giving them a voice.” He also noted that his was the only national news team that covered the events in person.

To CNN’s further credit, the story was not buried in some obscure corner of the site, but was linked prominently yesterday with a photo on the CNN homepage.

Here’s hoping other news networks and media outlets take a cue from CNN and start doing more reporting and less repeating.

You have the right to attract attention to yourself

I don’t know Ty McDowell of Portland, Maine personally. I allow for the possibility than in other aspects of her life, she may perhaps be an intelligent person. But on this past Saturday, at least, Ms. McDowell may have qualified as the Dumbest Person In America.

McDowell, you see, believes strongly in equal rights for men and women. To her, that includes the right to bare one’s chest in public. So she arranged a protest in which she and two dozen other female true believers walked topless down a main street in Portland. Of course, this was hardly the first protest involving female nudity, and if that were the end of the story, I wouldn’t be making derogatory suppositions about McDowell’s intelligence.

In fact, McDowell and her fellow protesters were not arrested. Under Maine law such behavior is only criminal if the genitals are exposed. So in fact, legally McDowell and company *were* within their rights to do what they did, and were treated accordingly by the law.

Nonetheless, McDowell was by her own account “enraged” after the demonstration. But not because of the police or the law. She was angry because a crowd of hundreds of onlookers – mostly male – had watched and followed the demonstration – some snapping photos and videos. (To be fair, she might have been equally furious with some of her own group who didn’t seem to mind posing for photos.)

You see, it turns out that what McDowell really expects is not that a woman should have the right to walk around topless, but that the rest of us should all act like this is no big deal. And I’m sure there are places where that might even be the case. However, Portland, Maine wouldn’t be on the top of my list.

It strikes me as the height of stupidity for a female to walk around in public with her top off and not expect males to ogle her. While she certainly has the right to remain unmolested, if you don’t want people to pay undue attention to you, don’t attract undue attention to yourself. Duh. Furthermore, it seems inherently contradictory to simultaneously seek to draw attention to your cause and then be angry when you in fact receive attention.

Ms. McDowell is certainly entitled to her views, but if she thinks that the factors of human biology which inherently lead men to be attracted to female breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic are somehow going to be altered by protesting, she is definitely the Dumbest Person In America. Heck, even *women* notice other women’s chests.

I am all for equal rights under the law, but that is not the same as pretending that there are no biological differences between men and women. While it is always impolite to stare at someone no matter how underdressed they may be, let’s face it, there are impolite people out there. If this is truly a great social injustice, the best solution would probably be to have men refrain from going topless in public also. In fact, I would argue that such should in fact be the norm outside of a pool or beach environment.

Do you ever wonder when you hear about people like McDowell where their parents are and what they could possibly be thinking?

Protect us from ourselves?

A recent arrest in Louisiana raises questions about whether we really need laws to protect us from ourselves. According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Michael Housey had an argument with his wife in their home. In order to blow off steam after the argument, Housey took his shotgun, fired once in the air and then fired at his own fence three times. No one was injured and the only property that was damaged belonged to Housey.

Obviously, neighbors heard the shots and called police. After speaking with Housey, the police arrested him for disturbing the peace, a misdemeanor. I have no argument with that. But there were additional charges: “illegally discharging a weapon” and “aggravated criminal damage to property” – both felonies in the state of Louisiana.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Apparently it is illegal to fire a weapon in the town where Housey lives, though I cannot imagine how that is constitutional – surely the right to bear arms must include the right to actually use them? Even more egregious though is the felony charge for “criminally” damaging his own property. Is that a level of protection Americans want or need their government to provide? Shouldn’t we have the right to foolishly smash, break or destroy our own possessions in a fit of rage if we choose to do so?

What we have here is a man who could potentially be facing jail time just for blowing off steam. I guess the state of Louisiana would rather Housey kick his dog next time he’s angry.

Hopefully the felony charges will be dropped and we can chalk this up to overzealousness by the police. But they represent one item among an increasing pattern of government seeking to control what we say, do, and even think not only in public but on private property and within the privacy of our own homes. The law does and should prevent us from using that privacy to harm or infringe the rights of others. But on what grounds does the government find itself to be a more lawful guardian of the property of a mentally sound individual than the individual is?

Let educators design curriculum, but not when they’re idiots.

In the ongoing debates about how to best educate our children, teachers (and their unions) often make the point that no one is better qualified to design curriculum than educators themselves. The argument is designed to resist interference both by government and by activist school committees and parents’ groups. And on paper, it’s a good argument.

The problem is that every now and then you get a group of educators whose minds have been so permanently addled by the corrosive soup of political correctness and identity politics that they swim in every day, that they come up with something so idiotic that it calls the argument of professional expertise into question.

Now if you’re thinking that I might just have a specific example in mind, you’d be right. The latest stupidity comes to us from (surprise) San Francisco, a city which as readers know is already legendary for its tolerance of the outrageous but never ceases to try to push the envelope to further heights of goofiness.

To state it simply: The city’s school board has decided to offer in its high schools a freshman course in ethnic studies which will earn college credit in the state university system. Further, the course is pass/fail, not graded – and unlike any other high school program that earns college credit, is aimed at poor students rather than advanced ones.

There are so many things wrong with this that one almost doesn’t know where to begin. It is beyond obvious that the purpose of this course is not to teach the students anything of value, but rather to boost their ethnic self-esteem and encourage them to set a goal of attending college. (No one would ever admit it, but you can bet that white students will be “discouraged” from taking this class, if not outright prevented.) Said one student: “How can I know who I can be if I don’t know who I am? Ethnic studies provides me with the foundation to learn who I am.” Wrong. Ethnic studies encourage you to base your identity on your ethnicity and see yourself in terms of group identity rather than as an individual. Nothing could be further from American ideals.

Leaving aside the question of whether high schools should even be offering ethnic studies when they can barely teach English and math, the notion of offering college credit for a pass/fail course simply demeans the value of the credits awarded. (Incidentally, nobody actually fails – they just transfer you out of the class. So it’s really “pass/pass”.) Why should anyone aspire to attend college if it is revealed to be a joke? And how can students be expected to succeed in college if this is the sort of preparation they’re receiving?

This nonsense came to the school board from the faculty at San Francisco State University. Like all school boards, they assume that college professors – professors of *education*, no less – must know what they’re doing when it comes to designing curriculum. But at what point does somebody have to put their foot down and insist on some collective common sense being applied to the situation? Of course, in San Francisco, common sense was banished by municipal ordinance a long time ago.

Tug of war between privacy and security continues

Of the many controversial topics in politics, one of the perennial favorites is the continuum between public safety and individual privacy. In other words, how do we protect an individual’s reasonable personal privacy while at the same time giving the government the tools it needs to keep us safe and protect us from criminals and terrorists?

The Founding Fathers considered this question very seriously. They came up with features such as search and seizure restrictions, due process, and the right to bear arms as ways of limiting the government’s power to intrude into citizens’ lives. With the passage of time, technology has vastly changed the landscape of the issue, offering new abilities to criminals, law abiding citizens, and law enforcement alike.

I try to keep an open mind and avoid a rigid ideology when it comes to these questions. For example, consider the recent decision by the TSA to begin randomly swabbing some air passengers’ hands to check for explosive residue. Even the ACLU is saying that if done properly, this is a reasonable security measure that does not constitute an excessive violation of travelers’ privacy; and I am inclined to agree.

But some questions are a bit more complicated, such as the issue of law enforcement’s access to cell phone location data. Many of us may not be consciously aware that whenever we use our cell phones, we are establishing a record of where we are located at that moment which is preserved by our phone service provider. There are good reasons why this should be possible – for example, emergency responders need to be able to locate someone making a 911 call if they cannot give their location. And law enforcement authorities can gain access to this information with a properly executed search warrant.

However, the courts are now being asked to consider whether law enforcement should allowed to access cell phone location information (though not the content of any transmissions) without a warrant. The Obama Administration is arguing that people using cell phones do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” regarding their location when using a cell phone, and therefore no warrant should be necessary. Complicating the issue is the distinction between historical location information, and prospective or real-time location as seen on many television shows such as “24″.

For me, this is a much tougher question. The value of allowing law enforcement to access such information is fairly obvious. But the “expectation of privacy” question is a difficult one once you take the content of the conversation out of the equation. It would be easy to stand on principle and argue that the government has no right to know where a citizen is at any given time unless there is a presumption that laws have broken. But consider: The government knows where you are every time you get on a train or airplane, or make a phone call from a land line. Why should cell phone use be qualitatively different? If the government is actively chasing a terrorist, do we want them to have to get a signed search warrant before they can use cell phone location to find and apprehend him?

I admit to being torn, but I find myself leaning toward the Administration’s position on this. The potential for abuse seems minimal compared to the likely benefits in terms of public safety. But I’m open to being convinced the other way. What do *you* think?

US successfully tests laser missile-killer

You want to know why I am generally supportive of defense spending? This is why.

The US Missile Defense Agency has just announced that last night they successfully tested an air-based laser missile interception system. In other words, a special jet plane goes up in the air, locates the missile, fires a laser and destroys the missile.

Folks, this is science-fiction/cartoon stuff brought to life. It also represents one of the many aspects of US missile defense technology that continues to develop at a rapid pace. We are getting close to the point of having systems in place that can successfully defend against a limited WMD missile attack, thanks to the foresight of Ronald Reagan who created the predecessor of missile defense in 1983 with the “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative. This most recent test is exactly the kind of thing Reagan had imagined and for which he was mocked and sneered at by his opponents.

Even better, this particular piece of technology is a joint venture among Boeing, Northrup Grumman, and Lockheed-Martin. Which means jobs for Americans and no squabbling between the big three areospace firms.

Want more good news? The technology is actually cost-efficient. While the laser-equipped planes are probably expensive to build, once operational it cost much less to fire the laser to blow up a missile than it would to hit it with another missile. Win, win, win, win.

Of course there is a way to go between successful tests and actual deployment of a working system. But isn’t it nice to have some good news on the security front for a change? Sort of puts in perspective yesterday’s crowing by the Iranians about enriching a tiny bit of uranium – something the US mastered over half a century ago. Where are your lasers, Mr. Ahmadinejad?

OK, this is slightly insane.

I have to think the NYPD is padding it a little bit in their latest estimate of the cost of providing security for a trial of top Gitmo terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at $200 million per year. Now, I appreciate that Mohammed would need some extraordinary security measures, as there might be people who could try to attack the courthouse to free him (or kill him.) And yes, everything is more expensive in Manhattan. But seriously, $200 million? I’m quite confident that for that sum I could hire my own small private army.

If the real security cost is anything close to that, then the feds should move the trial somewhere else and save the taxpayers some $. Is there some reason why a civilian trial couldn’t be held at a secure military facility?

2009 in review

Now why would I go and write a year in review column when Dave Barry’s already done it for me? It’s long, but it’s a must-read – it actually gets funnier as it goes along.

And if you find yourself having trouble recalling which things actually happened and which are jokes – well, that’s sort of the point:

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/dave-barry/v-fullstory/story/1397654.html

Real-life Superman?

Yes, Nick Harris really is Superman. Not because I think he actually lifted a car off a trapped child – most likely he simply pushed it hard enough to roll the wheel off her – but because he saw someone in danger, and instead of doing what most of us would have done – stood there gaping too surprised to do anything helpful – he took action. He didn’t look around for someone more qualified or ask himself whether the victim was to blame for running in front of a car that was moving. He simply acted:

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2009/12/18/kansas_dad_manages_to_lift_car_off_6_year_old?mode=PF

Do you think that Ashlyn Hough or her family care whether Harris really has super strength or not?

And so it begins: If you’re Christian, you must be psychologically disturbed

I have commented in this space previously about the ongoing war against religious faith generally, and Christian faith in particular, being waged by the Left in this country. Sadly, one of the chief battlegrounds has been our public schools, where the slightest mention or display by a student of anything like a Christian symbol or belief can be labeled “intolerance of diversity” and constitute grounds for discipline.

Worse news, though, is that the next phase of anti-Christianity has now begun. Unsatisfied with labeling Christians as bigots, the new logic goes like this: Belief in Jesus is irrational and therefore evidence of a psychological problem, which should of course be treated with therapy and drugs until the person becomes a happy, well-adjusted atheist.

If you think this is a wild exaggeration, consider the recent case of an 8-year old boy in Taunton, Massachusetts. In response to an instruction by his teacher to draw something that reminded him of the holiday season, the boy drew a stick figure of Christ on the cross. The teacher and the school administration decided that the appropriate reaction to this outrage was to send the child home from school immediately and force him to undergo a psychological evaluation  - which he passed – before allowing him to return.

The teacher apparently became upset because he or she felt the image was violent, being especially disturbed by the child’s drawing Xs where Jesus’ eyes would be (a common way of representing closed eyes.) The teacher claims the boy said he had drawn himself on the cross. You can judge for yourself how alarming and violent the image is here.

Even taking the teacher’s explanation at face value, I fail to see how a rational person would judge this 8 year old  boy to be a danger to himself or his classmates based on this drawing. If the teacher had concerns about the boy’s home situation, surely that did not require such immediate and drastic action. Needless to say, the poor kid does not understand what he did wrong and has been rather traumatized by the whole business. He will be transferring to another school at the request of his parents.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is the teacher rather than the student who should be undergoing a mandatory psychological evaluation. But don’t hold your breath.