I'm watching you...

iWatch, Government Community Watch

A summit among big city police chiefs was held in Denver to discuss the specifics of a new program called iWATCH, an anti-terrorism community watch developed by the LAPD. The basis of this program is similar to that of a neighborhood watch, but on a much larger scale. The police are hoping that everyday citizens can help put the kibosh on terrorists by reporting suspicious behavior in areas such as government buildings, mass gatherings, schools and public transportation. They are asking citizens to look for unusual indicators such as smelling chemicals or fumes, someone wearing baggy clothing, or someone purchasing supplies or equipment that could be used in bombs. There are a total of 9 suspicious actions to look for and 12 places you should look. So basically, keep your eyes peeled for anyone doing anything, any time you are in public place.

Smelling chemicals and fumes is a regular occurrence on public transit and if I had to call every time I saw some teenager wearing clothes 14 times bigger than him, I’d start sending my cell phone bill to the government. And aren’t the only people who know what everyday items are used to make a bomb, the people who are making the bombs. I mean how many 70-year-old grandmas had to be told why their cold medicine could only be purchased after asking the pharmacist’s permission, presenting your ID and having your retina scanned by infrared? The only people who knew you could make meth with Sudafed were the people making meth. So with such broad indicators, how are we to determine who is a terrorist and who simply tends to run cool on a summer day? If we’re being honest, then we all know the answer. It will be the color of their skin, the accent in their voice, or the language they speak. Let’s face it, if I’m purchasing a large amount of conditioner, a cashier is going to assume I’m having a bad hair day. (This is just an example, of course, because I have no idea if you can make a bomb with conditioner.) People are not going to walk around all day checking whether people are emitting fumes; those who will participate in iWATCH, are those that will judge a terrorist suspect based on the criteria with which they are comfortable. And that certainly won’t be their size 42 pants.

The founders of this watch group claim they will educate callers who are reporting people based solely on their ethnicity or race. But will this prevent those people that have been reported from having their privacy invaded? Are you seriously telling me a person calling in a claim about an Arab-American at the court house, walking around in a winter coat in October, is not going to be investigated? We live in a racist society. Over the years the prejudice changes from minority to minority, but the foundation is still there. Fear those who look different. Fear those who look similar to others who have caused harm. And the only way to really know what we are looking for in the form of terrorists is to look to those who have terrorized before. America is full of imperfect citizens who make imperfect decisions. And as an American it is our right to make those decisions, but it is also our right not to be figuratively stripped searched based on the accusation of one of our imperfect brethren.

The police chiefs endorsing this program would have you believe it is your civic duty to protect our nation. But is it not also our civic duty to allow our fellow Americans to do as they wish when not harming others? When does civically responsible individual and nosy busybody collide? For years, police have set up tip lines to assist in solving crimes; but they are usually preceded by a release of information about the crime, a description of the suspect, the date, place, and time of the event, or even a description of the crime that was committed. iWATCH is being hailed as something similar to neighborhood watch groups, but those neighbors know what they are watching for, they know who doesn’t belong in their neighborhood. What is being asked of our citizens with this anti-terrorist watch is more along the lines of playing a game of I Spy. Give us some clues and send us to see if we spot anyone fitting that vague description. The possibility of guesses is endless. How can this possibly help prevent terrorism?

America is a fear based society and when anyone questions the propaganda being fed to us under the guise of keeping our country safe, we are told we live in a post-9/11 world. (Just as previous generations were told it’s a post-Pearl Harbor or post-Vietnam society.) When will that excuse no longer wash? When we will we realize that we can never make up for what happened that day? No matter how many “suspects” we turn in, no matter how many prisoners we torture, no matter how many neighbors’ homes we search, we can never make up for what happened on 9/11. Because that’s what iWATCH, and all of the other Patriot Act’esque operations, seems to be trying to do; relieve the guilt we feel over not being able to stop the Twin Towers from falling.

Perhaps we should try a different approach, though, because this one feels very “been there, done that”. iWATCH is a wash from the start; from one side of the mouth they are saying, look for terrorists, but from the other they are saying terrorists could be anyone, anywhere, looking anyway. Asking the citizens of our nation to spend their time looking for terrorists suspects who may or may not exist in their general vicinity, is like asking a 2-year-old to spot the difference between a cookie and a low-fat, low-calorie, gluten free alternative. We don’t know what we are looking for and the vague description, given by those who comprehend what they are looking for, serves as little more than a false security blanket that we are helping to serve and protect, when really, we’re probably just turning in an innocent bystander. As with many far reaching programs, this one is doomed to fail, or at least be a long and arduous process that lends to few, if any, real leads. Have we learned nothing from our “No Fly” list?

Kane Hoax

William Taylor was standing at the corner of a busy intersection in Tyson’s Corner holding a sign that read, “I cheated. This is my punishment.” As cars whizzed by, they honked, they yelled, some practiced sign language, and the buzz began to spread through the area. Local radio and TV stations sent crews to get a quote from the adulterer. Soon, the story was picked up by national news organizations and by 6PM, it was on every station’s website and ran on many evening broadcasts. Taylor began receiving calls from Today and GMA. He spoke with The Kane Show on DC’s Hot 99.5 radio station.
On Wednesday, September 02, 2009, after allegedly being accosted by a local reporter, Kane, from The Kane Show, admitted the entire story was made up and “William Taylor” was actually an intern for the radio station. Kane explained that the idea had come to him about 6 months prior, after hearing about a mother who made her son wear a sign admitting to bad grades and smoking marijuana. The ruse, according to the radio DJ, was meant to expose the lack of research and truth in a lot of news stories. He said he decided to execute the plot last week because of the death of Ted Kennedy. The timing was meant to prove the ability of a fluff story to supersede that of a true news story.
Perhaps the point of the deception is a valid one; but, really, was Kane’s hoax an attempt to bring to light a lack of journalistic integrity or was it meant to feed his seemingly insatiable ego? As with many of his segments, Kane came across as self-righteous when revealing his hoax, lecturing on the need for journalists to check their facts and use truth in reporting. Though, in the same hour in which he addressed his moral “experiment”, he also trivialized the truly heinous hazing at a Colorado State University sorority, commenting that eating cat food is “not that bad”. And when a caller admitted that his frat brothers were asked by their sister sorority to color the parts of pledges’ bodies that they didn’t like, Kane responded such an act is “not going to hurt you”. I guess having previously dismissed his journalistic responsibility, saying simply, “I’m not a journalist”, releases him from any accountability in encouraging degrading behavior that can lead to serious emotional distress. The hypocrisy of lecturing others on principled reporting while claiming his liabilities are nil, because his show is for entertainment, seems to be lost on him.
I have listened to Kane for many years, having been in Florida during his tenure at 93.3FLZ, and for the most part he comes across as an arrogant individual who admits to his faults only as they benefit his ratings. I’ve heard him defend asking a spouse to flirt with your boss to get a raise, but condemn a woman for making pornographic tapes with her long-time boyfriend. He’s punished his wife for keeping old love letters from an ex-fiancé by reading the letters on air, but has admitted to looking up ex-girlfriends on the internet. He was enraged at Ashlee Simpson’s rebuttal to claims she was drunk during an interview with his show, claims that cast him in an unflattering light, yet defended the ‘right’ of his co-host to accost a woman who was smoking a cigarette while wearing a Live Strong bracelet. He claims to be pressing for more journalistic accuracy, but has a Celebrity Dirt segment on the half hour that regurgitates mostly fabricated stories regarding celebrities. (Sarah manages to quote from the National Enquirer without even a hint of sarcasm in her voice.) Kane is a walking contradiction and far from being in a position to dub himself a moral compass.
Maybe I’m completely off base, maybe Kane’s only motives were those of a concerned party, but to me this practical joke seemed to feed Kane’s ego more than teach a lesson to the unethical news journalists. From the conception of the plan to the news storm that ensued to his dramatic admission that the story was bogus, Kane seemed to relish more in his ability to dupe everyone than in the principle he was supposedly trying to convey.
After the revelation, Kane commented on Twitter, “MEDIA: ur getting it ALL wrong. if it was publicity, I'd have my name on it. YOU made it a story by not checking your facts. Don't blame me”, but it’s hard to believe such a thing when he had his hand in it the entire time. He didn’t send his intern to the busy intersection and then sit back and watch how it played out. He promoted the story. He posted about it on Facebook and Twitter, interviewed the “adulterer” and “wife” on his morning show, and timed the big reveal, purportedly to thwart harassment by a reporter, to serendipitously cause The Kane Show to be splashed across the internet.
Kane is a good radio DJ. He markets himself well and keeps his show fresh and interesting, a prime example being this story. He reels his listeners in with current events that get them fired up. (On more than one occasion I have spent an hour in the car, yelling at my radio.) He tells just enough about his life to make the audience feel as if they know him. He, Samy, and Sarah have an easy connection, one that leaves you thinking you’ve been involved in a 4-way conversation, rather than having been a mere listener within the masses. As a morning show host, he gets the job done. As a beacon of integrity, however, he is sorely lacking.
If Kane does not wish to be categorized as a journalist, then he should stick to what he does best, reciting other journalists’ stories on air, giving away concert tickets, and playing music. Leave the ethical checks and balances to those who have a leg to stand on.

A Little To The Left...

In recent weeks of the health care debate, much attention has been given to the town hall meetings turned screaming matches. In theory, these meetings would explain the intricate details of a jargon-filled bill that most Congress members are having trouble deciphering (I don’t even think Schoolhouse Rock would want to tackle this one), but in practice they have become little more than a partisan debate over which side’s ideals are more un-American. The fiascos are a chance for one side to convince the other why they are wrong. With each side standing up and asking preposterous questions of the other (Do you really believe the Health Care bill is a communist plot?) and nutcases attempting to disrupt the entire event with their in-your-face tactics ranging from screaming over Senators to bringing a weapon to the affair, these meetings serve as satirical fodder for newspaper columnist and late night hosts, but have managed to accomplish little else. And in the end, most Americans on both sides of the aisles, see it going to the way-side with little changed, as was done with the Health Care Reform bill of President Clinton’s time. We all have the same hopes and prayers at the end of the day, that we and our loved ones will go to our graves having lived such healthy lives that we will never really be affected by Health Care Reform, or the lack thereof. It seems are ideals for accomplishing the unpleasant task of caring for our ailing and sick fellow Americans are so different, however, that we can’t even manage to be in the same room with someone that won’t be brought around to our side of the argument.
But are our ideas really that different? In the end, don’t we all want good doctors, with reasonable costs, that won’t turn us away because we would have to file for bankruptcy once we finished paying for our procedures (if we paid at all)? That’s what I hear, at least, from people on the right to the left to those who like nothing more than to have something to discuss around their dinner tables. So why has finding a solution to a common problem become a passion-filled, fear-inducing, shout fest that has no hope of considering either side, let alone coming to an amicable end?
I’m reminded of a tactic my mother used to keep things fair in our house. Being raised with 3 siblings gives you a perspective on fair that most people don’t have until well into their 20’s, fair doesn’t really exist at all. But in an effort to delay my knowledge of this fact, my mother would allow one of us to split what we were fighting over (usually a candy bar) and the other would be get to choose their side first. And while splitting everything evenly isn’t always the best course of action in adult matters, the sentiment is still the same; represent each side and each side will feel represented.
“I’m not saying Health Care doesn’t need reform, but this isn’t the way.” Or so I hear from any random person on the street who doesn’t agree with my belief about the Health Care system. So, what is the way? That seems to be the million dollar question that our town hall meetings have yet to answer. And with the exception of a close friend who filled several boxes of comments on my Facebook, no one person has seemed to be able to articulate this for me, either.
The true issue of this debate isn’t that we don’t agree, but rather that we can’t manage to come together as mature individuals with a common goal (better health care) and brain storm a solution. I’m sure the highly intelligent, opinionated men that became our founding fathers had their disagreements, as well. But they managed to hammer out a couple of life-altering documents in their time. Hopefully, we can do the same.
Imagine what we would come up with if the screaming subsided, the name-calling ceased, the dramatic, look-at-me tactics were set aside and everyone just listened. Maybe you would hear something you never thought of before. And maybe, just maybe, it would be coming from the opposite side of the aisle. That debate may just produce some results, a little from the left, a little from the right, some from the middle. And then, we might just have ourselves a Health Care Reform bill that has a little bit of hope to reform health care.

**Published 09/23/09 in Eldersburg Advocate

A news story I found today on AOL was about a former professional baseball player who owes upwards of $725,000 in back child support. The story goes on to explain that this person (I refuse to call him a man) bought a South Pacific island and lived there for 8 years with his current wife to avoid paying child support. He was finally returned to the US when his passport expired. This story is bad enough. A person doesn't want to pay $5000 a month in child support, which seems like a lot of money until you find out he purchased an island and a 21-room resort. But in the comments after the story, you find this:

dominguezfiv 12:28:26 PM Dec 14 2008

Think,think,think! Regardless of what the father made monetarily, it was temporary.The amount of $5000 per month, which the chidren would have never spent, would surely make the wife ample in funds to spend on herself. I am sure the $5000 was court mandated. The result of which was his leaving. If the court had, with his agreement, found an amount which he agrred was reasonable, his children would have seen his father all along, and he would not have been cornered. Additionally, the children, would have prefered to have a father all along and some support, say $1000 per month, than to have neither. Some court decisions, cause more damage than benefits to the children that are beign protected. What is needed is to improve situations and not worsen them. I am sure the mother was very happy at the court decision. Could she forsee the final results? They both lost. Not to mention the children.

I, on many occasions, have found numerous people I disagree with in the comments section of AOL. However, I never thought there would be even one person who thought this guy wasn't a bastard, and then that. The man bought an island and hid from his kids to avoid paying $5000 a month in child support. And this is the courts' and mother's fault? This guy's post is the very reason so many people don't have personal responsibility. Regardless of whether he agreed or disagreed with the amount, a MAN would have stayed behind and supported his children. A MAN would have wanted to be near his children, no amount of money would have changed that. Instead he ran off and left his kids high and dry. Regardless of whether you think a child is worth $5000 a month has nothing to do with it. If he truly couldn't afford the payments, he could have gone back to court a year later and proven that. Instead he is a coward, low-life, dead-beat dad, who has been living a life of luxury. He deserves every punishment he gets. He and the commenter are why the world is full of fatherless children. They make excuses for dead-beat dads so they feel justified in their actions.

Gee Mr. Journalist, Why Does Jennifer Aniston Keep Talking About Her Ex?

Recently Jennifer Aniston has been featured prominently on the cover of 2 major magazines, GQ & Vogue. Prior to both of these articles, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt had made comments about falling in love on the set of Mr. & Mrs. Smith, thus admitting to an affair during Pitt's marriage to Aniston. Of course, this is going to prompt questions from the journalists of the Aniston articles to ask her how she feels or thinks about these comments. In both situations the responses by Aniston are pretty short. In response to the articles on Aniston, the sentiment has been, 'just get over it already, stop bringing it up'.

Perhaps, if you would truly like for her to "get over it", 2 things should happen. One, Pitt and Jolie could manage to stop publicly stating they had an affair while Pitt was still married. An allegation that up until a few months ago, both vehemently denied. For whatever reason, they are now owning up to it. I guess Aniston is to have no response to the fact that she was lied to by her then-husband.

The second course of action, I think the most important, is STOP ASKING HER ABOUT IT. I don't know if everyone thinks that she walks into her interviews and says "What Angelina Jolie said, that was really uncool", but last I checked interviews are conducted by the writer of the story and they tend to ask questions. She could simply refuse to answer, but as history has shown, that can cause more gossip than a simple response. In my humble opinion, Jennifer Aniston has been nothing but courteous and respectful throughout the entire ordeal. The bottom line is, this woman's husband cheated on her, then lied to her about it and at the time she choose to believe him. Now, 4 years later he and the new woman are admitting that they did, in fact, have an affair. For any woman this would come as a blow, but for Aniston, she has to read about it splashed across every entertainment rag magazine and be constantly questioned about it during interviews that are supposed to be about her new movie. And on top of all of that, she is now being told to "get over it". How about all of you get over it and leave her alone?

On HSN they feature a gentleman named John Edward who purports to sell spiritual items. But really how spiritual can they be if he's hocking them on HSN so he can turn a profit? I put him on the same level as televangelists. I can help you find salvation, for 3 easy payments of $39.95.

Growing up, my parents always tithed to our church, even when we had no money. That same church, however, kept us clothed and feed on several occasions when we had no money. Tithing to your community church helps the people of that church and community. They are truly doing God's work. But these televangilists and authors of multi-million dollar christian books are nothing but self-serving opportunists. Using the faith people have in God to drain them of their bank accounts. Now, normally in these situations, I would say of the people being taken advantage of, oh well, they should use common sense. However, the victims of these schemes are usually older folks, confined to their homes and no longer able to attend their local churches. They turn to these farces on TV to give them spiritual guidance and in turn "tithe" to those "churches". Unlike their local church, however, they will never see this money again. Not unless they become a business associate of the "preacher". Those funds line the pockets of men who are out for themselves, they are not out to do God's work.

There are so many debates about religion and spirituality, none of which I want to get into. But I think we can all agree on one thing: you don't have to hock merchandise on HSN to get closer to God. You will only be getting closer to the poor house.

Update on Black Friday Stampede

In the news today, was a story about the family of the Wal-Mart worker who was trampled to death and that they are suing. While I half expected this, I'm very surprised at the number of people they have decided to sue. In addition to suing Wal-Mart, they are suing the strip mall where Wal-Mart is located, the security company Wal-Mart hired, Nassau County, and the Nassau County PD. The claims against Wal-Mart, I get. I've always felt Wal-Mart needed to better control these types of events. Stampedes have happened before. How exactly are the rest of these entities responsible? The strip mall has absolutely no control over the sales Wal-Mart offers, they are not responsible for Wal-Mart's security. The security company was doing as instructed by their employers, Wal-Mart, and they are not liable unless an egregious mistake was made on their part. The most incredilous of all of these is the County and the PD. How in the world could they have possibly foreseen this type of thing happening, or where for that matter, and been on scene to prevent it? The police can only do so much.

This is a horrible, horrible thing. Not only because a person lost their life, but also because it shows the lack of humanity left in this world. But the bottom line is, suing everyone under the sun will do nothing but make a lot of lawyers very happy. Should Wal-Mart be investigated to ensure they did everything within their power to keep their employees safe? Absolutely. If they are found negligent, then by all means they should pay. But the rest of this lawsuit is frivilous. The very inclusion of these other parties diminshes the substance of this lawsuit.