Recently a British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was arrested in Sudan for "insulting religion" and "inciting hatred." Gibbons apparently allowed her second grade class to name a Teddy Bear Muhammad. Muhammad is a common name among Muslim men, but giving the prophet's name to an animal is viewed as an insult. Gibbons faced a harsh penalty for her ignorance and there were crowds at her trial demanding she be executed. Instead, Gibbons was sentenced to fifteen days in prison and deportation. She was eventually freed and sent back to England when that country issued two diplomats to negotiate her release. There has been tremendous outrage, and rightfully so, over the Sudanese reaction to the whole "crime," but what about Gibbon's duties as a teacher?
Teachers are responsible for a child's education, and that entails teaching children about the culture of which they are a part. Gibbons decided that she wanted to teach in the largely Muslim country of Sudan, which means she should have some knowledge of Islam and of Sudanese culture. The controversy surrounding Gibbons indicates that perhaps she did not understand as much as she thought. Insulting Muhammad is probably the last thing you want to do as a visitor in a Muslim country, and as a teacher Gibbons should have taught her pupils that naming an animal (Teddy Bears included) after the prophet is not kosher. Gibbons later commented that she went to Sudan for an "adventure." Well, mission accomplished.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Heed Hugo Chavez's Warning
Recently Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez asserted that if the United States covertly worked to destabilize Venezuela, or more specifically Chavez's authority, he would cut off his country's supply of oil to the U.S. The U.S. should take Chavez's assertion seriously because there is little doubt that the longer he remains in power the more unstable Venezuela will become. Although the U.S. has become notorious for its foreign intervention, Venezuela's destabilization will arise from Chavez's own socialist policies.
Chavez's abhorrence of capitalism and U.S. policymakers is well documented, so it is no great leap to deduce that he will blame the impending economic catastrophe in Venezuela on U.S. meddling. Chavez has instituted price controls and grabbed private property and businesses. His assault on the free-market has led to food shortages and inflation. Chavez's response to these predictable consequences has been to blame capitalists and individualists (read the United States) rather than to examine his own economic policies.
Chavez's apparent lack of comprehension of basic economics will, in the not too distant future, lead to a economically weaker Venezuela. The United States should therefore prepare for the day when Chavez cuts off oil deliveries in a vain attempt to win back support from the Venezuelan populace, who will no doubt demand an explanation for the turmoil he will have brought upon them.
Many may argue that Venezuela needs American dollars too much to cut-off their supply of oil to the United States. There are two problems with this point. First, it rests on the assumption that Chavez will be grounded by logic. Chavez has repeatedly shown that the only logic he follows is that of a tyrant. Second, it does not take into account the growing demand for oil from China, which is at the moment experiencing nationwide fuel shortages. Granted, the logistical complications of transferring Venezuelan oil supply from the U.S. to China are substantial; but one can never underestimate a motivated tyrant trying to hold on to power.
The United States currently receives about 11% of its oil from Venezuela. Any significant change in the supply of oil from Venezuela means the U.S. would either need to rely more heavily on other suppliers or find alternative energy sources. The prospects of either option becoming a desirable and feasible substitute to Venezuelan oil over a short period of time are not good. The U.S. economy would feel the effects over the loss. The CIA may be wiretapping Chavez's phone calls as we speak.
Chavez's abhorrence of capitalism and U.S. policymakers is well documented, so it is no great leap to deduce that he will blame the impending economic catastrophe in Venezuela on U.S. meddling. Chavez has instituted price controls and grabbed private property and businesses. His assault on the free-market has led to food shortages and inflation. Chavez's response to these predictable consequences has been to blame capitalists and individualists (read the United States) rather than to examine his own economic policies.
Chavez's apparent lack of comprehension of basic economics will, in the not too distant future, lead to a economically weaker Venezuela. The United States should therefore prepare for the day when Chavez cuts off oil deliveries in a vain attempt to win back support from the Venezuelan populace, who will no doubt demand an explanation for the turmoil he will have brought upon them.
Many may argue that Venezuela needs American dollars too much to cut-off their supply of oil to the United States. There are two problems with this point. First, it rests on the assumption that Chavez will be grounded by logic. Chavez has repeatedly shown that the only logic he follows is that of a tyrant. Second, it does not take into account the growing demand for oil from China, which is at the moment experiencing nationwide fuel shortages. Granted, the logistical complications of transferring Venezuelan oil supply from the U.S. to China are substantial; but one can never underestimate a motivated tyrant trying to hold on to power.
The United States currently receives about 11% of its oil from Venezuela. Any significant change in the supply of oil from Venezuela means the U.S. would either need to rely more heavily on other suppliers or find alternative energy sources. The prospects of either option becoming a desirable and feasible substitute to Venezuelan oil over a short period of time are not good. The U.S. economy would feel the effects over the loss. The CIA may be wiretapping Chavez's phone calls as we speak.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The Baggy Pants Crusade
Several cities across the country are discussing plans to ban baggy pants. Apparently, some people find baggy pants offensive, so offensive that those that wear them should be considered criminals. It seems that for most it's more about the exposed underwear underneath the baggy pants than the baggy pants itself. The contention is that the fashion is indecent, but this is one of the most ridiculous, absurd, and unenforceable laws in recent memory.
Aside from defining exactly what is considered "baggy," there are several practical reason why this is a complete waste of time and tax-payer money. In addition to defining "baggy" the law would also have to define "underwear," or I could simply wear shorts or bathing suit bottoms under my baggy pants to skirt the law. What about topless joggers? I am regularly offended my men jogging with no shirts on, and even men who aren't jogging with no shirts on. I propose that all men should have to wear shirts in public. Then we would have to stop people who wear baggy clothes for work, like painters or basketball players. The law must be enforced equally.
Why stop at baggy pants? Lets ban long dark trench coats, ear muffs, bow ties, and those waist pouches. I find these fashions outdated, offensive and or weird, and I'm sure several other people do also. In fact, why don't we require everyone to wear blacks slacks and white collared shirts. Then we won't have to worry about spending our time and money on these very important fashion laws. I feel safer and less offended already.
Aside from defining exactly what is considered "baggy," there are several practical reason why this is a complete waste of time and tax-payer money. In addition to defining "baggy" the law would also have to define "underwear," or I could simply wear shorts or bathing suit bottoms under my baggy pants to skirt the law. What about topless joggers? I am regularly offended my men jogging with no shirts on, and even men who aren't jogging with no shirts on. I propose that all men should have to wear shirts in public. Then we would have to stop people who wear baggy clothes for work, like painters or basketball players. The law must be enforced equally.
Why stop at baggy pants? Lets ban long dark trench coats, ear muffs, bow ties, and those waist pouches. I find these fashions outdated, offensive and or weird, and I'm sure several other people do also. In fact, why don't we require everyone to wear blacks slacks and white collared shirts. Then we won't have to worry about spending our time and money on these very important fashion laws. I feel safer and less offended already.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Taxes and the American Backbone
Taxes are bad. Unfortunately, most Americans really don't comprehend how bad taxes are. Let me try to rectify this by examining the old colloquialism "money is power." The more money you have, the more power you have. You can buy a home, donate to a worthy charity, send your children to good schools, and even buy that Audi A4 you've been eyeing. So what does it say about a politician who wants to increase your taxes? Easy, that politician wants to take power away from you and keep it for themselves.
Now this slick politician will say it's for the good of the country, but I'm sure you've seen enough John Stossel on 20/20 to know the government is not very good at spending your money. After all, this is the same government that spent over $980,000 of your tax money to ship two cent washers to Iraq. No kidding. This is the same government that used a Bill to fund the Iraq Conflict to build a multi-million dollar peanut storage facility. Again, no kidding.
Go ahead and take a look at your paycheck and imagine what you could do if income taxes weren't taken out of your check. Have you received a pay raise recently? Chances are you barely noticed the difference in your paycheck because of the taxes. On top of that you have to pay sales tax. Oh, and don't think it's safe to jack up taxes on corporations either. A 1% increase in corporate taxes means a 0.8% increase in prices to you and me.
Nothing illustrates this point better than the story of Matt Murphy. Murphy was fortunate enough to catch Barry Bonds' record breaking home run ball. Unfortunately, Murphy cannot keep the ball because he cannot afford to pay the taxes. That's right, he can't use it as collateral to open a business, he can't use it as a down payment on a home, and he can't keep it with the hopes that it will appreciate in value.
Does that sound American? Does that sound like giving power to the people? What happened to the spirit of the Boston Tea Party? Think of this the next time you demand government services. All you're doing is giving control of your own life to someone else. You're much better off doing for yourself.
Now this slick politician will say it's for the good of the country, but I'm sure you've seen enough John Stossel on 20/20 to know the government is not very good at spending your money. After all, this is the same government that spent over $980,000 of your tax money to ship two cent washers to Iraq. No kidding. This is the same government that used a Bill to fund the Iraq Conflict to build a multi-million dollar peanut storage facility. Again, no kidding.
Go ahead and take a look at your paycheck and imagine what you could do if income taxes weren't taken out of your check. Have you received a pay raise recently? Chances are you barely noticed the difference in your paycheck because of the taxes. On top of that you have to pay sales tax. Oh, and don't think it's safe to jack up taxes on corporations either. A 1% increase in corporate taxes means a 0.8% increase in prices to you and me.
Nothing illustrates this point better than the story of Matt Murphy. Murphy was fortunate enough to catch Barry Bonds' record breaking home run ball. Unfortunately, Murphy cannot keep the ball because he cannot afford to pay the taxes. That's right, he can't use it as collateral to open a business, he can't use it as a down payment on a home, and he can't keep it with the hopes that it will appreciate in value.
Does that sound American? Does that sound like giving power to the people? What happened to the spirit of the Boston Tea Party? Think of this the next time you demand government services. All you're doing is giving control of your own life to someone else. You're much better off doing for yourself.
Journalists Are Not Inherently Altruistic
Congratulations to Barry Bonds on breaking Major League Baseball's career home run record. Bonds recently hit his 756th home run, but for some the new record is tainted because of Bonds' alleged steroid use. I say alleged because Bonds' grand jury testimony has not been made public but was leaked by a criminal, alcoholic, and drug-addicted lawyer name Troy Ellerman. Ellerman allowed a San Franscisco Chronicle reporter to view transcripts of grand jury testimony. Of course, this was highly illegal but was of no consequence to the reporters who reaped great personal benefit from Ellerman's criminal act.
Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, authors of the book Game of Shadows, are recipients of the George Polk Award for their investigative reporting on steroid use in sports. In addition, the two have won praise from their peers and even President George Bush. I wouldn't doubt if they also received pay raises.
Williams and Fainaru-Wada claim that they published the leaked testimony because the "people" deserved to know the truth. They claim that the country is better, because parents can talk to their kids about the dangers of steroid abuse as a result of the increased awareness surrounding the issue. Williams also asserts his First Amendment right to free speech.
Sorry guys, I don't think you're that altruistic. The bottom line is both Williams and Fainaru-Wada gained wide-spread notoriety and financial benifits for their work with their drug addict accomplice Ellerman. I highly doubt the pair would have been interested in the leaked testimony if they weren't going to receive any personal benefit. So is it alright for the pair to claim they are exempt from jail time for contempt of court for not revealing their source?
Absolutely not. The pair knew the possible consequences of their actions before they published their story and went ahead with it anyway. I suspect it was because the benefits of doing so outweighed the disadvantages. Furthermore, they had direct contact with the criminal. It may be a different story if they were talking to a witness of a crime and not the criminal himself.
Williams and Fainaru-Wada can continue exercise their right to free speech. They don't and didn't have to name their source. The consequence of this action is jail time. Its that simple. In journalism, as in life, you have to take the good with the bad.
Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, authors of the book Game of Shadows, are recipients of the George Polk Award for their investigative reporting on steroid use in sports. In addition, the two have won praise from their peers and even President George Bush. I wouldn't doubt if they also received pay raises.
Williams and Fainaru-Wada claim that they published the leaked testimony because the "people" deserved to know the truth. They claim that the country is better, because parents can talk to their kids about the dangers of steroid abuse as a result of the increased awareness surrounding the issue. Williams also asserts his First Amendment right to free speech.
Sorry guys, I don't think you're that altruistic. The bottom line is both Williams and Fainaru-Wada gained wide-spread notoriety and financial benifits for their work with their drug addict accomplice Ellerman. I highly doubt the pair would have been interested in the leaked testimony if they weren't going to receive any personal benefit. So is it alright for the pair to claim they are exempt from jail time for contempt of court for not revealing their source?
Absolutely not. The pair knew the possible consequences of their actions before they published their story and went ahead with it anyway. I suspect it was because the benefits of doing so outweighed the disadvantages. Furthermore, they had direct contact with the criminal. It may be a different story if they were talking to a witness of a crime and not the criminal himself.
Williams and Fainaru-Wada can continue exercise their right to free speech. They don't and didn't have to name their source. The consequence of this action is jail time. Its that simple. In journalism, as in life, you have to take the good with the bad.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
School Choice: It's Your Right
Nothing in life is guaranteed but an education certainly makes things more certain. If you weren't born into a wealthy family or fortunate enough to have the right societal connections, then the key to making your dreams more attainable is an education. As Americans we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers realized the integral role an education had in the pursuit of the latter. Thomas Jefferson is known to have promoted the creation of a public school system. Few doubt the value of an education but many doubt the effectiveness of our current public school system.
If the government provides a service, that service must be equally available to all citizens. Currently there is equal access but unfortunately many only have access to ineffective schools. For the most part this is not intentional but simply a result of circumstance. The sad state of schools in economically poor districts is a result of a shortage of supply of competent and effective teachers and administrators. The fact is, teachers and administrators have a choice in the schools for which they work, and they often choose the more affluent higher-paying schools over their poorer counterparts. So if choice is good for teachers and administrators why is not good for students?
Choice is an essential component for improving the U.S. school system. The quality of your life may depend on the quality of your education. If your tax dollars can pay for a better alternative than the public schools in your municipality then the government should not limit your choice, and therefore your pursuit of happiness.
Those who oppose choice in school selection claim it will result in the the closure of many public schools and job loss for many public school employees. Why should these schools remain open if they are ineffective and their employees sub-par? Bad schools exist because the government continues to finance their failures. It's only natural that we take our money elsewhere if we are disappointed in the service we receive. The same should be true for public schools.
If the government provides a service, that service must be equally available to all citizens. Currently there is equal access but unfortunately many only have access to ineffective schools. For the most part this is not intentional but simply a result of circumstance. The sad state of schools in economically poor districts is a result of a shortage of supply of competent and effective teachers and administrators. The fact is, teachers and administrators have a choice in the schools for which they work, and they often choose the more affluent higher-paying schools over their poorer counterparts. So if choice is good for teachers and administrators why is not good for students?
Choice is an essential component for improving the U.S. school system. The quality of your life may depend on the quality of your education. If your tax dollars can pay for a better alternative than the public schools in your municipality then the government should not limit your choice, and therefore your pursuit of happiness.
Those who oppose choice in school selection claim it will result in the the closure of many public schools and job loss for many public school employees. Why should these schools remain open if they are ineffective and their employees sub-par? Bad schools exist because the government continues to finance their failures. It's only natural that we take our money elsewhere if we are disappointed in the service we receive. The same should be true for public schools.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Current U.S. Wars
War in Afghanistan
War against Al Qaeda
War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on the Middle Class
War on Poverty
War on Christmas
War on Crime
War on Fundamentalism
War on AIDS
War on Cancer
War on Obesity
War against Men
War against Women
War on Want
War on Science
War on Illegal Immigration
War on Journalism
War on Guns
War on Christians
War on the Environment
War in Iraq (not officially a war)
I guess a war on taxes is out of the question, then we wouldn't be able to fund all our other wars.
War against Al Qaeda
War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on the Middle Class
War on Poverty
War on Christmas
War on Crime
War on Fundamentalism
War on AIDS
War on Cancer
War on Obesity
War against Men
War against Women
War on Want
War on Science
War on Illegal Immigration
War on Journalism
War on Guns
War on Christians
War on the Environment
War in Iraq (not officially a war)
I guess a war on taxes is out of the question, then we wouldn't be able to fund all our other wars.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Lou Dobbs: The Epitome of Neo-Journalism
The Lou Dobbs Tonight show is the second most watched broadcast on CNN after Larry King Live. 800,000 Americans tune in each night to watch this self-proclaimed journalist at work. The show pays particularly close attention to the issues of border security, illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, and free trade. The problem is, as is common with most "news" broadcasts on 24-hour news networks, Dobbs' coverage of these and other subjects is laced with his own personal opinions.
The problem with injecting opinion into news is simple: eventually the facts will be distorted to reflect and support a particular viewpoint. Dobbs is not the only so-called journalist on television guilty of this action, but is among the best at injecting his opinion into reports on issues of the day. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and Glenn Beck are other characters who have also mastered this craft.
Fortunately not every commentator on 24-hour news networks claims to be a journalist, but the effects of their broadcasts are the same. It has become increasingly more difficult to find factual news reports. Instead, viewers find themselves watching one person's opinion of the news. Of course, this opinion has to be strong and compelling or it will never draw the ratings (read revenue) necessary to make the show worthy of broadcast. I am sure you can now see the conflict for the 24-hour news networks: accurate and straight forward reporting versus usually accurate opinion laden news that makes money.
Their choice has been pretty obvious. Faced with increasing competition and a need to distinguish themselves, 24-hour news networks have sacrificed a little integrity for a lot of cash. How else can you explain how individuals like Dobbs are allowed to place greater emphasis on their viewpoint of a story than the story itself? This turn for the worse would not be so infuriating if the networks did not pretend to be (to borrow a phrase) fair and balanced.
On top of this pretension we now have commentators like Dobbs insisting they are journalists. For the record, journalists simply report the news while commentators both report and provide commentary. Its hard to argue that Dobbs and his ilk stop at just reporting. For example, I am sure you know Dobbs' opinion of President Bush's free trade policy or Glenn Beck's opinions of Iran.
Its fair to say that there is no such thing as 24-hour news. There are a few hours of infomercials, a documentary or two, a comedic take on the current events, a few hours of commentary, and maybe a couple hours of actual straight news. Now there is even less news. Perhaps some creative lawyer should file a lawsuit for false advertising. After all, CNN doesn't stand for Cable News Network; no, CNN=Politics. Didn't you know?
The problem with injecting opinion into news is simple: eventually the facts will be distorted to reflect and support a particular viewpoint. Dobbs is not the only so-called journalist on television guilty of this action, but is among the best at injecting his opinion into reports on issues of the day. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and Glenn Beck are other characters who have also mastered this craft.
Fortunately not every commentator on 24-hour news networks claims to be a journalist, but the effects of their broadcasts are the same. It has become increasingly more difficult to find factual news reports. Instead, viewers find themselves watching one person's opinion of the news. Of course, this opinion has to be strong and compelling or it will never draw the ratings (read revenue) necessary to make the show worthy of broadcast. I am sure you can now see the conflict for the 24-hour news networks: accurate and straight forward reporting versus usually accurate opinion laden news that makes money.
Their choice has been pretty obvious. Faced with increasing competition and a need to distinguish themselves, 24-hour news networks have sacrificed a little integrity for a lot of cash. How else can you explain how individuals like Dobbs are allowed to place greater emphasis on their viewpoint of a story than the story itself? This turn for the worse would not be so infuriating if the networks did not pretend to be (to borrow a phrase) fair and balanced.
On top of this pretension we now have commentators like Dobbs insisting they are journalists. For the record, journalists simply report the news while commentators both report and provide commentary. Its hard to argue that Dobbs and his ilk stop at just reporting. For example, I am sure you know Dobbs' opinion of President Bush's free trade policy or Glenn Beck's opinions of Iran.
Its fair to say that there is no such thing as 24-hour news. There are a few hours of infomercials, a documentary or two, a comedic take on the current events, a few hours of commentary, and maybe a couple hours of actual straight news. Now there is even less news. Perhaps some creative lawyer should file a lawsuit for false advertising. After all, CNN doesn't stand for Cable News Network; no, CNN=Politics. Didn't you know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)