The New Editor - Civil Liberties

Terrible Social Problem Solved

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:39:07 -0700

In case you were sending Christmas gifts from Wine.com:

New York and Connecticut gift baskets: Per state law we cannot ship baskets containing both food and wine within the states of New York and Connecticut. Baskets ordered that include both food and wine will be sent in two separate packages.

The other 48 states are still in peril, however.

FDA Considers Ban on Young Children's Cold Medicine

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:06:00 -0600

The term "nanny state" has never been so accurate.

Would this stop parents from giving to their kids similar medicines made for adults? Would we be bringing back the good 'ol days when parents gave their kids a shot of brandy with some honey?

From 1969 to 2006, at least 54 children died after taking decongestants, and 69 died after taking antihistamines, the report said.

That's "at least" 123 deaths out of the, what, 500 million or so people in the US who've been kids during that 3-plus decade period?

Silliest comment of the year award nominee:

Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Baltimoreâs commissioner of health and an author of a petition that led the F.D.A. to conduct its current review, cheered its new report, saying it raised serious questions about why anyone would give cough and cold medicines to young children.

âThese products are used by hundreds of thousands of kids every year, but no one can say that theyâre safe or effective,â he said.

Except perhaps the hundreds of thousands of parents who continue to buy the stuff, or the hundreds of thousands of kids who didn't die.

Massachusetts Considering Banning Smoking in Some Condos and Apartments

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:21:42 -0600

From WBZ radio in Boston:

Early next year, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is planning to survey landlords, condo associations and tenants about the feasibility of smoke-free residential zones.

Reports say that the state legislature is also considering a health zone, where all trans fats, fast foods, alcohol, red meat, white flour, wheat products, non-organic produce, and Cheez-Its would be banned. Daily jumping jacks would be required of every resident of the zone at 6 am, and overweight zone citizens would be required to prove they've lost 5% of their body weight in the previous year before being allowed to renew their driver's license.

The zone would be roughly bounded by New York State to the west, Rhode Island and Connecticut to the south, New Hampshire and Vermont to the north, and the Atlantic ocean to the east.

It's Poor Judgement Not to Know Every Law on the Books

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:05:00 -0600

If you can't get a college football coach like Charile Weis to give it to you straight, the ball game is nearly over.

Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis said Monday that quarterback Jimmy Clausen's citation for transporting alcohol as a minor is a simple case of ignorance of the law.

"I think it's out of ignorance -- and by ignorance I mean lack of knowledge," Weis said. "I don't think he was defiantly trying to get himself into trouble with the law."

Weis said he himself didn't know it was illegal for someone who's underage -- Clausen is 19 -- to drive someone who is of legal drinking age to a liquor store to buy alcohol. He used the analogy of a friend of his son's driving the coach to a supermarket to buy a six pack of beer.

Still, Weis said it was a mistake.

"Did he have bad judgment, being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely. You can't sit there and say when something happens that nothing happened," Weis said.

Major college football coaches are part politician today, but how can you say someone used bad judgment for not knowing every one of the, what, 10,000,000 laws on the books in the US? Forget Vince Lombardi's call to care only "about God, your family, and the Green Bay Packers, in that order." Today's it's about your school's reputation, your marketability, and following to the letter every idiotic law that our busy-body politicians have foisted upon us.

Fairness Practice

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:06:00 -0600

Tom Elia pointed out Tucker Carlson's interview with Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) about the "fairness doctrine," the odious rule extinguished in the late 1980s that forced broadcast outlets to air alternative opinions to whatever they were broadcasting.

Democrats want to bring this First Amendment shredder back.

In the interview, Rep. Hinchey pointed out that it's not a big deal that stations might be forced to include Holocaust deniers to "balance" someone talking about the Holocaust. Everyone knows the deniers are fools anyway!

Hinchey wants to compel us to offer you an alternative opinion, so call this practice. We know the rule will only pertain to the airwaves, because afterall, the airwaves are publicly owned, not privately owned. But who owns the internet? Isn't it inevitable that the FCC will weedle its way into regulating it too?

And it's no big deal, since everyone knows Paul Krugman is an intellectual lightweight and that virtually nothing he says is correct. Kind of like a Holocaust denier.

The Times shouldn't be exempt from fairness and neither should The New Editor. Since we disagree with it, in fairness, here is the entire text of Paul Krugman's defense of government regulation of speech, originally published on November 29, 2002, and now available on Times Select should you choose to pay for it.

In Media Res
by Paul Krugman

This week Al Gore said the obvious. "The media is kind of weird these days on politics," he told The New York Observer, "and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party."

The reaction from most journalists in the "liberal media" was embarrassed silence. I don't quite understand why, but there are some things that you're not supposed to say, precisely because they're so clearly true.

The political agenda of Fox News, to take the most important example, is hardly obscure. Roger Ailes, the network's chairman, has been advising the Bush administration. Fox's Brit Hume even claimed credit for the midterm election. "It was because of our coverage that it happened," he told Don Imus. "People watch us and take their electoral cues from us. No one should doubt the influence of Fox News in these matters." (This remark may have been tongue in cheek, but imagine the reaction if the Democrats had won and Dan Rather, even jokingly, had later claimed credit.)

But my purpose in today's column is not to bash Fox. I want to address a broader question: Will the economic interests of the media undermine objective news coverage?

For most of the last 50 years, public policy took it for granted that media bias was a potential problem. There were, after all, only three national networks, a limited number of radio licenses and only one or two newspapers in many cities. How could those who controlled major news outlets be deterred from misusing their position?

The answer was a combination of regulation and informal guidelines. The "fairness doctrine" forced broadcast media to give comparable representation to opposing points of view. Restrictions on ownership maintained a diversity of voices. And there was a general expectation that major news outlets would stay above the fray, distinguishing clearly between opinion and news reporting. The system didn't always work, but it did set some limits.

Over the past 15 years, however, much of that system has been dismantled. The fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987. Restrictions on ownership have been steadily loosened, and it seems likely that next year the Federal Communications Commission will abolish many of the restrictions that remain â quite possibly even allowing major networks to buy each other. And the informal rule against blatantly partisan reporting has also gone away â at least as long as you are partisan in the right direction.

The F.C.C. says that the old rules are no longer necessary because the marketplace has changed. According to the official line, new media â first cable television, then the Internet â have given the public access to a diversity of news sources, eliminating the need for public guidelines.

But is this really true? Cable television has greatly expanded the range of available entertainment, but has had far less broadening effect on news coverage. There are now five major sources of TV news, rather than three, but this increase is arguably more than offset by other trends. For one thing, the influence of print news has continued its long decline; for another, all five sources of TV news are now divisions of large conglomerates â you get your news from AOLTimeWarnerGeneralElectricDisneyWestinghouseNewsCorp.

And the Internet is a fine thing for policy wonks and news junkies â anyone can now read Canadian and British newspapers, or download policy analyses from think tanks. But most people have neither the time nor the inclination. Realistically, the Net does little to reduce the influence of the big five sources.

In short, we have a situation rife with conflicts of interest. The handful of organizations that supply most people with their news have major commercial interests that inevitably tempt them to slant their coverage, and more generally to be deferential to the ruling party. There have already been some peculiar examples of news not reported. For example, last month's 100,000-strong Washington antiwar demonstration â an important event, whatever your views on the issue â was almost ignored by some key media outlets.

For the time being, blatant media bias is still limited by old rules and old norms of behavior. But soon the rules will be abolished, and the norms are eroding before our eyes.

Do the conflicts of interest of our highly concentrated media constitute a threat to democracy? I've reported; you decide.

Reservists On Vacation vs. Gun-Free Zone

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:13 -0600

A distressed man opened fire last night in the crowded New York New York casino in Las Vegas last night.

A "distressed" gunman on a balcony at the New York-New York casino opened fire on gamblers below early Friday, wounding four people before he was tackled by off-duty military reservists. A fifth person was hurt in a crush of people fleeing the casino...

"This subject was capable and motivated to continue shooting," (Las Vegas Police Captain James) Dillon said, "but he was tackled and taken into custody after the first volley of rounds"...

All the injuries were described as minor, and none of the victims remained hospitalized.

Distressed man wanting to shoot people shoots people. The similarities between this incident and the Virginia Tech shooting sadly end there.

The Law Didn't Help Them

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Tue, 29 May 2007 00:05:00 -0600

Jon Corzine survived not wearing a seat belt; tragically 24-year old Marquise Hill did not survive not wearing a life jacket while jet-skiing on Lake Pontchartrain.

In both cases laws on the books did not help them. Social pressure works better than laws; often laws have the opposite effect: They create rebels among us. We're still a nation of pioneers and individualists, afterall.

Corzine was the CEO of powerful Goldman Sachs, a US Senator, and is governor of New Jersey. Much too powerful to be told to wear his seat belt. To his credit, he did a PSA imploring people to buckle up without mentioning the petty law and fine. Hill was a hulking and respected member of an NFL team that's won 3 of the last 6 Superbowls.

But neither could beat the laws of physics - the harshest laws of all. Why anyone thinks a $50 fine will deter someone with the hubris to challenge nature is beyond me. In a free country they should be able to, regardless of the sad outcome, and the rest of us should have the freedom to watch Corzine on his crutches and see Hill's funeral and make our own decisions.

Bush Administration Goes to Bat For Hollywood

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Wed, 16 May 2007 00:04:00 -0600

Sometimes the administration does inexplicable things, and this is one of them.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.

"To meet the global challenges of IP crime, our criminal laws must be kept updated," Gonzales said during a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Monday.

The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy.

Under the new laws, I may have just committed a capital offense by reproducing those sentences.

I'm overstating the case, but laws to punish intent strike me as creepy even when the crimes being thought about are terrible. Attempting to download and sell the latest garbage from some moronic pop star - Sheryl Crow tops my list in that category right now - doesn't strike me as a grave threat to society.

We have no shortage of artists, photographers, singers, songwriters, movie producers, TV producers, playwrites, and poets. That's a good thing. Absent any evidence people are getting out of the creation business because of whatever pirating is going on, the laws we have are more than enough. And for crying out loud, don't get Homeland Security involved!

But what's truly perplexing here is this: Why would George W. Bush help the industry that has portrayed him in songs, movies, and TV shows as the worst US president and possibly among the greatest criminals the world has ever seen?

The Rebirth of Civility?

tpelia@yahoo.com (Tom Elia) — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:04:00 -0600

Daniel Henninger has a wonderful piece on civility in public discourse in the Wall Street Journal.

The whole article is terrific, but I especially loved this part about the proposed "Bloggers Code of Conduct": (emphasis added)

It is appropriate that this line should be drawn in the ether of the World Wide Web, whose controlling ethos up to now has been that speech and expression should remain free, unfettered and--the totemic word that ends all argument--"democratic." As it developed, too many of the Web's democrats, for reasons that have provided much new work for clinical psychologists, tend to write in a vocabulary of rage and aggression.

Then there was this:

The admission of need for something called a Bloggers Code of Conduct is about more than just the Web. The deeper import of what may be happening here should be evident in Mr. O'Reilly's remark, which was the final sentence in a long New York Times article on the subject last Sunday: "Free speech is enhanced by civility."

It is difficult for me to imagine a more revolutionary sentence. One might call it "subversive."

"Free speech is enhanced by civility." The revolution comes at the end of that sentence. Free speech we know about. Civility we have forgotten. Ask Don Imus.

Subsets of civility would include courtesy, respect, politeness and deference. Civility is a public virtue. Like oil or wheat, it is a necessary social commodity that allows society to function.

That said, it would be overreaching to lay the blame for civility's fall on the World Wide Web. The erosion of our stores of civility occurred over the past 40 years, undermined by torrents of political rage and self-assertion.

Read the whole piece.

Corzine Didn't Wear a Seat Belt

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:02:00 -0600

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine showed the nation why wearing a seat belt is the smart thing to do.

Corzine chief of staff Tom Shea said he did not believe the governor had been wearing his seat belt.

"If he was not, he certainly should have been," Shea said, "and we would encourage the state police to issue a citation."

The $46 fine will really put a dent in the multi-millionaire Corzine's wallet.

Wearing seat belts is a good idea (and not wearing them is stupid), but fining people for not doing so is a silly exercise in nanny state feel-good politics. The punishment for not wearing them is often great enough. Ask Jon Corzine.

Liberals and Conservatives Agree: Regulate Communication!

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:03:00 -0600

Sometimes it's bad when liberals and conservatives agree. Both want to regulate communications to some degree, but could there be an entity in American life that needs regulation less? Tech Central Station makes the case for freedom.

The fact that someone else, someone over whom you have no control, could be watching something with which you disapprove is the price you pay for the same courtesy being returned to you. Government regulators should not make value judgments on what legal material is suitable for television - individuals should. And in the case of children, that is the job of parents.

Calling for regulation of an industry is like asking the devil to dance. He'll hit the floor with you, but he'll lead -- and won't necessarily stop just because you've had enough.

Amen.

Do We Really Believe In Free Speech?

paulsgeary@yahoo.com (Paul Geary) — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:03:00 -0600

Free speech seems under attack all over the place today. Do we really even believe in it? Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... That's fairly unequivocal, and I contend that very few of us actually believe in it.

Far too many people don't understand the concept that support of free speech means that you support freedom for speech and ideas that you find repugnant. That misunderstanding has created a nation of people who support free speech in theory, but for many of whom free speech comes with a list of caveats. The Supreme Court has caveated the First Amendment nearly to death over the years, on behalf of both liberals and conservatives.

Cathy Young at Reason discusses the recent "investigation" of College Republicans at San Francisco State University (talk about being behind enemy lines!) who stomped on home-made flags of Hamas and Hezbollah that contained the word "Allah."

Meanwhile, Don Imus is being suspended for two weeks for his "nappy-headed ho" reference to the women of the Rutgers basketball team. Jesse Jackson (of "Hymietown" fame) will continue to protest Imus unless he's fired.

We've criticized Rosie O'Donnell, Keith Olberman, Ann Coulter, and many others. But in no case have we agitated for anyone's firing. Business owners have a right to ensure that commentators don't damage the business because of stupid comments. That puts them in the position to decide what is acceptable and what isn't, but the most they can do is fire someone.

Here's the problem though: the FCC gets heavily involved in these issues, and can pull the licences of broadcasters who don't perform in the "public interest" despite its charter mandate that it not censor.

The FCC simply shouldn't have the power to do this. Colleges that take public money - and that would be just about all of them - have ironically become some of the worst offenders in the censorship arena. We're raising a generation of people who've learned to self-censor, and who have seemingly accepted the concept that some speech should be silenced.

In the past, saying anything anti-American would get you in trouble. Today, ethnic slurs are the pariah of the day.

But for the sake of free speech, the Rosie O'Donnells and College Republicans of the world should be debated, not silenced.