"What's going on in the head of Charlie Sheen?" That was the question leading off the ABC interview of Sheen on 20/20 Tuesday night, but Sheen was allowed to ramble on incoherently for the next hour without the question ever being answered.
One thing is clear. Sheen is coming mentally unhinged in a very public forum.
Originally the story was an actual news item. CBS had canceled filming on Sheen's sitcom Two and a Half Men for the rest of the season. Then the story began to focus on Sheen's odd behavior. Every major news network, including politically-oriented networks like MSNBC and Fox News, have taken the story and run with it, even as it has turned into something less like a news item and more like a desperate scramble for ratings at the expense of Sheen's mental health.
Celebrity addiction expert Drew Pinsky told TMZ: "It's no joke. He's getting manic. These are bipolar, manic symptoms."
Many medical professionals agree with Pinsky that Sheen is exhibiting bipolar symptoms, although they caution against diagnosing him based on media sound bites.
Whether bipolar disorder is the cause of Sheen's erratic and grandiose behavior, or whether it is caused by drug intoxication or even withdrawal, the question is no longer: "What's going on in the head of Charlie Sheen". It's "What's going on in the heads of TV news executives who report Sheen's manic rantings as news?"
Unlike other celebrities who have suffered similar meltdowns such as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, no one in Sheen's inner circle is able to reign him in. So he's out there, rambling incoherently, and the news reporters are hanging on every word, laughing at every "joke", as if Sheen is actually making any sense.
The media can be excused for wanting to jump on the ratings bandwagon, but it is clear that Sheen is delusional, and the real question is: "When someone is coming mentally unhinged and in serious need of medical attention, how can it be ethical to enable him by encouraging his delusional behavior?"
What may be amusement for TV viewers is serious business. Unless someone steps in and helps Sheen, the only way this story ends is in complete destruction.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Political rhetoric blamed for Arizona shooting
The news spread quickly. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was fighting for her life after a deranged gunman went on a rampage in a scene that is becoming all too familiar in this age of mass shootings and homegrown terrorists. The shooting in Arizona left six people dead, including a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl.
The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 sparked intense debate about gun violence, gun laws, the system of treating mental illness, and the media's coverage of these types of tragedies. Since the shootings by a Virginia Tech English major, hundreds of people have been injured or killed in similar events. The media has been blamed for inciting copy-cat incidents, played out by people with mental problems and a paranoid hatred of government policies.
Not long after the Arizona massacre, news stations were playing an interview with Giffords from last march urging Republicans, especially Tea Party members, and specifically Sarah Palin, to cool the rhetoric. Palin had posted on her Facebook page showing her congressional district in the crosshairs of a gun.
The gunman's motive is not yet known, but in Arizona's Pima County, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik suggested "all this vitriol" in recent politics might be connected to the shootings. "This may be free speech," he said at a news conference, "but it's not without consequences."
The debate has spread at a speed unprecedented even in the age of the Internet, with liberal bloggers and social media commentators blaming the attack on Palin and the violent imagery evoked by some Tea Party candidates and other conservatives during the recent midterm elections.
In a Facebook posting, Palin did not address the past language she has used but offered her condolences to the shooting victims. It was widely reported in blogs and in the media that Palin has taken down the crosshairs map from her web page.
The attack on Giffords comes after what has been a particularly ugly season in American politics, especially when it comes to last year's passage of the health care reform bill. Last March, the glass door of Giffords' Congressional office in Tucson was smashed in the middle of the night.
"Community leaders, figures in our community need to say 'look, we can’t stand for this'", she told Chuck Todd on MSNBC a few days later. "This is a situation where the rhetoric is firing people up and, you know, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action."
"But in fairness, campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years," Todd said, and then asked, "And so, is there a line here? I understand that in the moment it may look bad, but do you really think that’s what she intended?"
Giffords' response: "You know, I can’t say, I’m not Sarah Palin. But I can say that in the years that some of my colleagues have served - 20, 30 years - they’ve never seen it like this."
Giffords brushed off Todd’s idiotic comments that campaign rhetoric has borrowed from war rhetoric over the years, noting that it’s much worse now than it ever has been.
Thomas Hollihan, a USC professor of political rhetoric, said people like the Arizona shooter "get affected by a kind of toxic political culture that makes them angry and paranoid that their government is being taken away." But he warned against coming to any conclusions. "People who commit crimes like this are often just unhinged," he said.
The information slowly coming out about the alleged shooter, 22-year-old high school dropout Jared L. Loughner, did not suggest he had any clear political motivation. Although he complained in online diatribes about terrorism and "mind control", what drove him to violence has not been established.
"We don't yet know what provoked this unspeakable act," President Obama said from the White House. "But we're going to get to the bottom of this."
While we still have no clear explanation of the shooter's motive, and we may never know (so far he's invoked his right to counsel), Saturday's shooting set off an eruption of anger, much of it by bloggers, but also on Web sites like Twitter and Facebook. If you spend any time online, the Tea Party seems to be the number one instigator, getting most of the blame, followed closely by Arizona's permissive gun laws and conservative media pundits such as Glenn Beck.
When asked by The New York Post if his daughter had any enemies, Giffords' father responded: "Yeah, the whole Tea Party."
In this age of the Internet, when figuring out who is responsible for the political rhetoric that set this tragedy into motion, it doesn't take long to see who the clear winner is. It's Sarah Palin.
The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 sparked intense debate about gun violence, gun laws, the system of treating mental illness, and the media's coverage of these types of tragedies. Since the shootings by a Virginia Tech English major, hundreds of people have been injured or killed in similar events. The media has been blamed for inciting copy-cat incidents, played out by people with mental problems and a paranoid hatred of government policies.
Not long after the Arizona massacre, news stations were playing an interview with Giffords from last march urging Republicans, especially Tea Party members, and specifically Sarah Palin, to cool the rhetoric. Palin had posted on her Facebook page showing her congressional district in the crosshairs of a gun.
The gunman's motive is not yet known, but in Arizona's Pima County, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik suggested "all this vitriol" in recent politics might be connected to the shootings. "This may be free speech," he said at a news conference, "but it's not without consequences."
The debate has spread at a speed unprecedented even in the age of the Internet, with liberal bloggers and social media commentators blaming the attack on Palin and the violent imagery evoked by some Tea Party candidates and other conservatives during the recent midterm elections.
In a Facebook posting, Palin did not address the past language she has used but offered her condolences to the shooting victims. It was widely reported in blogs and in the media that Palin has taken down the crosshairs map from her web page.
The attack on Giffords comes after what has been a particularly ugly season in American politics, especially when it comes to last year's passage of the health care reform bill. Last March, the glass door of Giffords' Congressional office in Tucson was smashed in the middle of the night.
"Community leaders, figures in our community need to say 'look, we can’t stand for this'", she told Chuck Todd on MSNBC a few days later. "This is a situation where the rhetoric is firing people up and, you know, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action."
"But in fairness, campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years," Todd said, and then asked, "And so, is there a line here? I understand that in the moment it may look bad, but do you really think that’s what she intended?"
Giffords' response: "You know, I can’t say, I’m not Sarah Palin. But I can say that in the years that some of my colleagues have served - 20, 30 years - they’ve never seen it like this."
Giffords brushed off Todd’s idiotic comments that campaign rhetoric has borrowed from war rhetoric over the years, noting that it’s much worse now than it ever has been.
Thomas Hollihan, a USC professor of political rhetoric, said people like the Arizona shooter "get affected by a kind of toxic political culture that makes them angry and paranoid that their government is being taken away." But he warned against coming to any conclusions. "People who commit crimes like this are often just unhinged," he said.
The information slowly coming out about the alleged shooter, 22-year-old high school dropout Jared L. Loughner, did not suggest he had any clear political motivation. Although he complained in online diatribes about terrorism and "mind control", what drove him to violence has not been established.
"We don't yet know what provoked this unspeakable act," President Obama said from the White House. "But we're going to get to the bottom of this."
While we still have no clear explanation of the shooter's motive, and we may never know (so far he's invoked his right to counsel), Saturday's shooting set off an eruption of anger, much of it by bloggers, but also on Web sites like Twitter and Facebook. If you spend any time online, the Tea Party seems to be the number one instigator, getting most of the blame, followed closely by Arizona's permissive gun laws and conservative media pundits such as Glenn Beck.
When asked by The New York Post if his daughter had any enemies, Giffords' father responded: "Yeah, the whole Tea Party."
In this age of the Internet, when figuring out who is responsible for the political rhetoric that set this tragedy into motion, it doesn't take long to see who the clear winner is. It's Sarah Palin.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Note to GOP - Comedy is hard, politics is harder
Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans celebrated a historic return to power this week by quickly turning the proceedings into a circus. The 112th Congress started out the week innocently enough by having the Constitution read aloud by members of both parties. Reading the Constitution is a great idea, but you would think that Republicans could do it in the privacy of their own homes or offices and save the theatrics for more important activities.
Next up for Republicans: repealing health care reform. Unfortunately, they got unwelcome news - a Congressional Budget Office estimate that this would increase the deficit by $230 billion by 2012. The CBO's nonpartisan report backed the Democrats' claims that overturning the health care law would cause a major hit to the deficit.
Republicans quickly dismissed the CBO projection as unrealistic. “CBO is entitled to their opinion,” Boehner said. “I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit.”
What is lost in the discussion is the fact that overturning the law signed by President Obama in March would also leave 32 million more Americans without health insurance, according to experts. A good example of cost-cutting is the recent news that a second person has died in Arizona resulting form the state's refusal to pay for certain transplants. In what has become known as Arizona's "Death Panels", Arizona reduced Medicaid coverage for transplants on October 1st last year under cuts included to help close a shortfall in the state budget. Dr. Rainer Gruessner, chair of the University of Arizona Surgery Department, predicts that nearly 30 Arizonans will die this year because of the state's decision to cut these transplants.
The Republicans want to repeal health reform, but don't have any alternative ideas on how to deal with the failing health care system in this country. The whole thing is just political theater anyway, because the repeal will never reach President Obama's desk for a veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is still there thanks to the lunacy of the Tea Party, has indicated that he won't even bring it to a vote. But the House has scheduled a repeal of health care reform on January 12th. But the Republicans must put on a show for their constituents.
In other news, the Republicans went from ridiculous to just plain absurd. On Thursday, two House Republicans somehow neglected to get sworn in as new members of Congress. Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania were not in the House chamber, but rather in front of a television in the Capitol Visitors Center during the swearing-in ceremony.
Sessions and Fitzpatrick were on the House floor on Thursday, voting and reading the Constitution, just like every other sworn-in member of Congress. But once Republican leaders learned that two of their members weren't legitimate members of Congress, they abruptly stopped the hearing on the health care law that was in session.
Shortly after the Rules Committee hearing was stopped, Fitzpatrick and Sessions both appeared back on the House floor and were administered the oath of office by Speaker Boehner, who mispronounced Fitzpatrick's name. But the House decided Friday to invalidate the initial votes cast in the new Congress by the two Republican Congressmen.
The week started out innocently enough. There was the freshman fundraiser hosted by Republican Congressman-elect Jeff Denham, featuring country music by LeAnn Rimes and a rare invitation to the press to attend and report on the event at the high-end W Hotel. The event clashed with the image Republicans have worked so hard to construct: citizen-legislators cleaning up the waste and extravagant ways of Washington.
By week's end, Republican aides are still crunching the numbers, but they can't get them to fit. It is now clear that they will fall far short of the $100 billion in saving the GOP promised in their election season pledge. So far they have pledged to slash $35 million from the House's operating budget. That's about 0.05% of the deficit.
The first-week Republican blunders did little to dampen Boehner's spirit. His themes of humility and austerity are intact. But the GOP is learning that its mistakes will be magnified as the new majority comes under scrutiny.
Now, as they make their clown act public, the Republican party is learning an important Hollywood lesson: comedy is hard, politics is harder.
Next up for Republicans: repealing health care reform. Unfortunately, they got unwelcome news - a Congressional Budget Office estimate that this would increase the deficit by $230 billion by 2012. The CBO's nonpartisan report backed the Democrats' claims that overturning the health care law would cause a major hit to the deficit.
Republicans quickly dismissed the CBO projection as unrealistic. “CBO is entitled to their opinion,” Boehner said. “I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit.”
What is lost in the discussion is the fact that overturning the law signed by President Obama in March would also leave 32 million more Americans without health insurance, according to experts. A good example of cost-cutting is the recent news that a second person has died in Arizona resulting form the state's refusal to pay for certain transplants. In what has become known as Arizona's "Death Panels", Arizona reduced Medicaid coverage for transplants on October 1st last year under cuts included to help close a shortfall in the state budget. Dr. Rainer Gruessner, chair of the University of Arizona Surgery Department, predicts that nearly 30 Arizonans will die this year because of the state's decision to cut these transplants.
The Republicans want to repeal health reform, but don't have any alternative ideas on how to deal with the failing health care system in this country. The whole thing is just political theater anyway, because the repeal will never reach President Obama's desk for a veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is still there thanks to the lunacy of the Tea Party, has indicated that he won't even bring it to a vote. But the House has scheduled a repeal of health care reform on January 12th. But the Republicans must put on a show for their constituents.
In other news, the Republicans went from ridiculous to just plain absurd. On Thursday, two House Republicans somehow neglected to get sworn in as new members of Congress. Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania were not in the House chamber, but rather in front of a television in the Capitol Visitors Center during the swearing-in ceremony.
Sessions and Fitzpatrick were on the House floor on Thursday, voting and reading the Constitution, just like every other sworn-in member of Congress. But once Republican leaders learned that two of their members weren't legitimate members of Congress, they abruptly stopped the hearing on the health care law that was in session.
Shortly after the Rules Committee hearing was stopped, Fitzpatrick and Sessions both appeared back on the House floor and were administered the oath of office by Speaker Boehner, who mispronounced Fitzpatrick's name. But the House decided Friday to invalidate the initial votes cast in the new Congress by the two Republican Congressmen.
The week started out innocently enough. There was the freshman fundraiser hosted by Republican Congressman-elect Jeff Denham, featuring country music by LeAnn Rimes and a rare invitation to the press to attend and report on the event at the high-end W Hotel. The event clashed with the image Republicans have worked so hard to construct: citizen-legislators cleaning up the waste and extravagant ways of Washington.
By week's end, Republican aides are still crunching the numbers, but they can't get them to fit. It is now clear that they will fall far short of the $100 billion in saving the GOP promised in their election season pledge. So far they have pledged to slash $35 million from the House's operating budget. That's about 0.05% of the deficit.
The first-week Republican blunders did little to dampen Boehner's spirit. His themes of humility and austerity are intact. But the GOP is learning that its mistakes will be magnified as the new majority comes under scrutiny.
Now, as they make their clown act public, the Republican party is learning an important Hollywood lesson: comedy is hard, politics is harder.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
How I'm spending my winter vacation
There is no perfect crime. We live in an imperfect world. But Gerald Applethorpe thought he could come close (but not too close, or there'd be no story).
A gun would be too obvious; an axe too uncommon for contemporary mayhem. No, it would be something easily available, perhaps a shovel. A large one. The gardener comes on Wednesday.
So begins my novel.
I will be taking my annual winter break from writing this blog. For the next month I will be working on my other writing projects.
In addition to my novel, I'm currently working on a rewrite of a screenplay with my writing partner Vincent Blanco. I can't disclose the details of it right now, other than the fact that it's a romantic comedy set in the worlds of advertising and coffeehouses. It will be low budget, similar to all the crap that Tyler Perry puts out, only funnier - and with Jewish people. Don't expect any car chases or explosions. Here's a rundown of my other projects:
I’m producing a reality show that I hope will be picked up for the 2010-2011 season. Because the television networks have been cutting costs, I’m putting my detective show on hold. All the networks have passed on my crime show about an alcoholic bipolar homicide detective and his sexy young female partner who work the streets of South Central L.A. looking for murdered tourists. Even filming in Vancouver would be too expensive, so even though CBS likes the pilot script, it’s just too expensive to film, especially if I get my first choice, Christian Slater, who commands a high salary. ABC was initially interested. They wanted Pauly Shore for the lead, but he wanted too much money and his own trailer, so they passed.
It’s all about the budget, so that’s why I’m switching to reality shows. I’m pitching my new show, called “Dumb Factor,” a remake of “Fear Factor,” which ran on NBC from 2001-2006. For $5,000, contestants will bungee-jump off a freeway overpass with an extremely frayed rope. The cars will run over the contestants until someone is stupid enough to get out and help, also getting splattered onto the pavement in slow-motion. This scenario will keep repeating until the commercial break. All that we’ll see after the commercial will be a bunch of dead bodies and a massive pile-up of Camrys. The winners will now compete for the second stunt, jumping out of an airplane with a placebo parachute, after which an Internet poll will be taken for the viewer to guess the winner. For those wanting to be a contestant, sign-ups will be on our website at www.stupididiot.com . This show will be perfect for ABC’s schedule, because they’re in the process of cancelling all scripted shows.
The tall, gray-haired man in the tan trench coat made his way up the elevator and stopped at the fourth floor. The receptionist said "hello". The man didn't look up. Something was wrong. He didn't belong there. It was clear by his demeanor.
An uneasy silence came over the room. All the people looked downward, trying to avoid eye contact. Then the man pulled out a shotgun and killed everyone in the room.
To be continued...
I'm also writing a light-hearted book of short stories about life in the San Fernando Valley, the area known for tract homes laid out on asphalt grids which make up part of the northern edge of Los Angeles, where the smog settles in like cheap hairspray and you can fry an egg on the streets during the summer.
As you can see, I have a very busy schedule. When I return from my break, this blog will continue on an as needed basis, so that I can devote time to my other projects. I look forward to your comments and feedback on my articles.
My blog, started in April 2009, originally appeared daily, until I realized that I didn't enjoy writing every day, and instead preferred to sit around the house eating Cheez Doodles and watching "Law and Order" reruns.
Thank you for the unprecedented support for my blog. Many readers have asked for more information about me. I graduated from Hudson University in New York with a B.A. in criminal justice. I started my writing career at the Los Angeles Daily News where I honed my skills writing obituaries and getting coffee for the city desk editor. I was fired for making fliers for my band on the company copying machine.
After many years in the music business playing trumpet and keyboards, I quit to work full time as a freelance journalist. After that, I became a consultant and news commentator. I then took off a year to try to sell my television scripts and reality show ideas. Now I'm concentrating on my screenwriting career. The media can contact me through my representatives.
Parts of this article were reprinted from my July 20, 2009 and September 2, 2009 blogs at www.paulsolomon.blogspot.com. It's not just that I'm lazy. I want my new readers to catch up on my earlier works. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I'll steal from myself.
A gun would be too obvious; an axe too uncommon for contemporary mayhem. No, it would be something easily available, perhaps a shovel. A large one. The gardener comes on Wednesday.
So begins my novel.
I will be taking my annual winter break from writing this blog. For the next month I will be working on my other writing projects.
In addition to my novel, I'm currently working on a rewrite of a screenplay with my writing partner Vincent Blanco. I can't disclose the details of it right now, other than the fact that it's a romantic comedy set in the worlds of advertising and coffeehouses. It will be low budget, similar to all the crap that Tyler Perry puts out, only funnier - and with Jewish people. Don't expect any car chases or explosions. Here's a rundown of my other projects:
I’m producing a reality show that I hope will be picked up for the 2010-2011 season. Because the television networks have been cutting costs, I’m putting my detective show on hold. All the networks have passed on my crime show about an alcoholic bipolar homicide detective and his sexy young female partner who work the streets of South Central L.A. looking for murdered tourists. Even filming in Vancouver would be too expensive, so even though CBS likes the pilot script, it’s just too expensive to film, especially if I get my first choice, Christian Slater, who commands a high salary. ABC was initially interested. They wanted Pauly Shore for the lead, but he wanted too much money and his own trailer, so they passed.
It’s all about the budget, so that’s why I’m switching to reality shows. I’m pitching my new show, called “Dumb Factor,” a remake of “Fear Factor,” which ran on NBC from 2001-2006. For $5,000, contestants will bungee-jump off a freeway overpass with an extremely frayed rope. The cars will run over the contestants until someone is stupid enough to get out and help, also getting splattered onto the pavement in slow-motion. This scenario will keep repeating until the commercial break. All that we’ll see after the commercial will be a bunch of dead bodies and a massive pile-up of Camrys. The winners will now compete for the second stunt, jumping out of an airplane with a placebo parachute, after which an Internet poll will be taken for the viewer to guess the winner. For those wanting to be a contestant, sign-ups will be on our website at www.stupididiot.com . This show will be perfect for ABC’s schedule, because they’re in the process of cancelling all scripted shows.
The tall, gray-haired man in the tan trench coat made his way up the elevator and stopped at the fourth floor. The receptionist said "hello". The man didn't look up. Something was wrong. He didn't belong there. It was clear by his demeanor.
An uneasy silence came over the room. All the people looked downward, trying to avoid eye contact. Then the man pulled out a shotgun and killed everyone in the room.
To be continued...
I'm also writing a light-hearted book of short stories about life in the San Fernando Valley, the area known for tract homes laid out on asphalt grids which make up part of the northern edge of Los Angeles, where the smog settles in like cheap hairspray and you can fry an egg on the streets during the summer.
As you can see, I have a very busy schedule. When I return from my break, this blog will continue on an as needed basis, so that I can devote time to my other projects. I look forward to your comments and feedback on my articles.
My blog, started in April 2009, originally appeared daily, until I realized that I didn't enjoy writing every day, and instead preferred to sit around the house eating Cheez Doodles and watching "Law and Order" reruns.
Thank you for the unprecedented support for my blog. Many readers have asked for more information about me. I graduated from Hudson University in New York with a B.A. in criminal justice. I started my writing career at the Los Angeles Daily News where I honed my skills writing obituaries and getting coffee for the city desk editor. I was fired for making fliers for my band on the company copying machine.
After many years in the music business playing trumpet and keyboards, I quit to work full time as a freelance journalist. After that, I became a consultant and news commentator. I then took off a year to try to sell my television scripts and reality show ideas. Now I'm concentrating on my screenwriting career. The media can contact me through my representatives.
Parts of this article were reprinted from my July 20, 2009 and September 2, 2009 blogs at www.paulsolomon.blogspot.com. It's not just that I'm lazy. I want my new readers to catch up on my earlier works. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I'll steal from myself.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Marijuana is a hot topic in California
As California's economy was going up in smoke, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in May of 2009 that it was time to study the possibility of legalizing and taxing marijuana. And now, Proposition 19 is on the California ballot. Interestingly, Schwarzenegger now opposes Proposition 19, calling it "deeply flawed" and claiming that its potential for generating tax revenue has been overstated.
When President Obama was asked last year about the subject, he wasn't interested. "No, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," he said at the time. His current strategy is to avoid discussing the issue altogether. But Schwarzenegger sparked the debate in California, and the nation joined in. A Zogby poll, commissioned in May of 2009 by the conservative O'Leary Report, showed that 52% of Americans favor legalization of marijuana, with only 37% opposed. The statistics are similar in California to the national numbers and have stayed about the same since that time.
Legalizing marijuana not only allows for the regulation and taxation of marijuana, similar to cigarettes and alcohol, but it removes the criminal element, freeing up our legal system to deal with actual criminals. Medical marijuana is already available in California. The U.S. Supreme Court on May 18th 2009, upheld the right of states to implement and administer their own medical marijuana laws, affirming the long held position that federal law does not preempt state medical marijuana laws.
Passage of Proposition 19 would make it legal under state law for anyone over 21 years old to possess marijuana, and the federal laws would probably again be trumped by state law. The federal government has indicated they may challenge the law if it passes, but the feds will most likely lose out to the will of the people and move on to more important things. The legal battle over medical marijuana was a win for the state, after all.
Marijuana hasn't always been illegal. Because of sensationalistic stories of murder and mayhem associated with marijuana use, it was criminalized federally in 1937 by the newly formed Bureau of Narcotics. Up until that time it had been used as a household drug treating headaches, toothaches, depression, menstrual cramps and of course just plain stress, and drug companies were working on developing a stronger strain. In 1938, the mayor of New York, Fiorello LaGuardia, who it was rumored would light up a joint before important meetings, formed a committee to study the actual effects of marijuana. It found, despite the governments claims, that there was no scientific reason to criminalize marijuana. The study found that it did not cause insanity or act as a gateway drug. It did not cause people to go on killing sprees, and it did not cause other types of deviant criminal behavior.
Like any substance, the potential for abuse is there, but studies have shown that not only is marijuana safer than most drugs, users don't get symptoms similar to what some have called "Starbucks head," commonly known as headaches associated with caffeine withdrawal.
Further studies have shown that marijuana use actually cuts down on crime, even when used by criminals, because it makes them more mellow. Even President Nixon took up the debate. In 1972, his Shafer Commission also concluded that marijuana should be legalized. Speculation that Nixon used to get high before giving major speeches has never been proven, but many experts site the famous "Checkers speech," when the then-Senator and Vice Presidential candidate got emotional before millions of viewers, as an example of an obviously high politician.
Leading California Democrats, including Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, are officially against Proposition 19, but the Democratic party stands to benefit from a larger voter turnout. This is due to the fact that normally apathetic groups such as young voters, who would normally skip midterm elections, may buck the trend and turn out in droves precisely because an issue that they are passionate about is on the ballot. The Wall Street Journal has recently pointed out that Democratic strategists are watching the race very closely. That's because this could be the same kind of "hot button" issue to energize the Left, much the same way that banning gay marriage energized the Right. If Proposition 19 is successful in California, look for variations to appear on the national stage, in time for the 2012 elections.
Brown, the current California Attorney General and candidate for Governor, was known for his eccentric behavior when as governor of California from 1975 to 1983 he was referred to as "Governor Moonbeam." Although there were rumors of marijuana use by Brown in the governor's mansion, it was never proven. Brown did, during his tenure, however, propose the establishment of a state space academy and the purchasing of a satellite that would be launched into orbit. Interestingly, a similar program was later adopted by the state, as a satellite was launched to provide emergency communications. Supposedly the cost of this venture, and other liberal expenditures by California politicians are what got us into this mess in the first place. In any case, billions of dollars have been spent over the years on marijuana enforcement nationwide. A 2007 report, "Lost Revenues and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws," by Jon Gettman estimated that law enforcement costs relating to marijuana nationally comes to 10.7 billion annually. The California State Board of Equalization estimates California's possible revenue from legalizing marijuana would be $1.3 billion per year.
Even though President Obama admits he smoked a little pot in his day, he has consistently been against legalization. It has been politically expedient for him to try and ignore the issue completely, but he was forced to address the issue because it outpolled all other questions in his first "online town hall" meeting early in his term.
Schwarzenegger, another famous ex-pot smoker (he can be seen in the movie "Pumping Iron" toking up), now favors cigars, at least publicly. He's the one who brought the matter to the public stage, but is now backtracking because it is politically correct. But California is on the brink of bankruptcy, and decriminalizing marijuana is a logical solution. A recent study showed that cigars are a much worse health threat than cigarettes. Schwarzenegger would be wise to give up his cigars in favor of marijuana. It's healthier.
When President Obama was asked last year about the subject, he wasn't interested. "No, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," he said at the time. His current strategy is to avoid discussing the issue altogether. But Schwarzenegger sparked the debate in California, and the nation joined in. A Zogby poll, commissioned in May of 2009 by the conservative O'Leary Report, showed that 52% of Americans favor legalization of marijuana, with only 37% opposed. The statistics are similar in California to the national numbers and have stayed about the same since that time.
Legalizing marijuana not only allows for the regulation and taxation of marijuana, similar to cigarettes and alcohol, but it removes the criminal element, freeing up our legal system to deal with actual criminals. Medical marijuana is already available in California. The U.S. Supreme Court on May 18th 2009, upheld the right of states to implement and administer their own medical marijuana laws, affirming the long held position that federal law does not preempt state medical marijuana laws.
Passage of Proposition 19 would make it legal under state law for anyone over 21 years old to possess marijuana, and the federal laws would probably again be trumped by state law. The federal government has indicated they may challenge the law if it passes, but the feds will most likely lose out to the will of the people and move on to more important things. The legal battle over medical marijuana was a win for the state, after all.
Marijuana hasn't always been illegal. Because of sensationalistic stories of murder and mayhem associated with marijuana use, it was criminalized federally in 1937 by the newly formed Bureau of Narcotics. Up until that time it had been used as a household drug treating headaches, toothaches, depression, menstrual cramps and of course just plain stress, and drug companies were working on developing a stronger strain. In 1938, the mayor of New York, Fiorello LaGuardia, who it was rumored would light up a joint before important meetings, formed a committee to study the actual effects of marijuana. It found, despite the governments claims, that there was no scientific reason to criminalize marijuana. The study found that it did not cause insanity or act as a gateway drug. It did not cause people to go on killing sprees, and it did not cause other types of deviant criminal behavior.
Like any substance, the potential for abuse is there, but studies have shown that not only is marijuana safer than most drugs, users don't get symptoms similar to what some have called "Starbucks head," commonly known as headaches associated with caffeine withdrawal.
Further studies have shown that marijuana use actually cuts down on crime, even when used by criminals, because it makes them more mellow. Even President Nixon took up the debate. In 1972, his Shafer Commission also concluded that marijuana should be legalized. Speculation that Nixon used to get high before giving major speeches has never been proven, but many experts site the famous "Checkers speech," when the then-Senator and Vice Presidential candidate got emotional before millions of viewers, as an example of an obviously high politician.
Leading California Democrats, including Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, are officially against Proposition 19, but the Democratic party stands to benefit from a larger voter turnout. This is due to the fact that normally apathetic groups such as young voters, who would normally skip midterm elections, may buck the trend and turn out in droves precisely because an issue that they are passionate about is on the ballot. The Wall Street Journal has recently pointed out that Democratic strategists are watching the race very closely. That's because this could be the same kind of "hot button" issue to energize the Left, much the same way that banning gay marriage energized the Right. If Proposition 19 is successful in California, look for variations to appear on the national stage, in time for the 2012 elections.
Brown, the current California Attorney General and candidate for Governor, was known for his eccentric behavior when as governor of California from 1975 to 1983 he was referred to as "Governor Moonbeam." Although there were rumors of marijuana use by Brown in the governor's mansion, it was never proven. Brown did, during his tenure, however, propose the establishment of a state space academy and the purchasing of a satellite that would be launched into orbit. Interestingly, a similar program was later adopted by the state, as a satellite was launched to provide emergency communications. Supposedly the cost of this venture, and other liberal expenditures by California politicians are what got us into this mess in the first place. In any case, billions of dollars have been spent over the years on marijuana enforcement nationwide. A 2007 report, "Lost Revenues and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws," by Jon Gettman estimated that law enforcement costs relating to marijuana nationally comes to 10.7 billion annually. The California State Board of Equalization estimates California's possible revenue from legalizing marijuana would be $1.3 billion per year.
Even though President Obama admits he smoked a little pot in his day, he has consistently been against legalization. It has been politically expedient for him to try and ignore the issue completely, but he was forced to address the issue because it outpolled all other questions in his first "online town hall" meeting early in his term.
Schwarzenegger, another famous ex-pot smoker (he can be seen in the movie "Pumping Iron" toking up), now favors cigars, at least publicly. He's the one who brought the matter to the public stage, but is now backtracking because it is politically correct. But California is on the brink of bankruptcy, and decriminalizing marijuana is a logical solution. A recent study showed that cigars are a much worse health threat than cigarettes. Schwarzenegger would be wise to give up his cigars in favor of marijuana. It's healthier.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Stopping Homegrown Terrorism - Pipe Dream or Pipe Bomb?
If the car bomb hadn't been a dud, there would have been many dead tourists and a crater in Times Square. But Faisal Shahzad was not good at the art of bomb making. If he had taken just a few more lessons on the Internet, things might have been different. The American citizen, originally from Pakistan, left his crude homemade bomb smoking in an SUV in Times Square in May. While counterterrorism authorities tried to claim some sort of victory for the failed bombing, even though quick response by New York city police would not have stopped a more skilled terrorist, the case highlighted how difficult it is to find terror suspects in the U.S. Authorities repeatedly pointed out that Shahzad had not come to the attention of any counterterrorism investigators prior to the Times Square attempt.
Since 2009, over thirty American citizens have been arrested on federal charges related to Islamist extremism. Fourteen people, including seven U.S. citizens, were charged this week with trying to join a Somali terrorist group allied with al-Qaeda, and were tied to two deadly bombings in Uganda. The Justice Department said in a statement that they were charged with trying to join or provide support to the group, known as al-Shabab. They were indicted in Minnesota, Alabama and California.
“Somebody's going to get through,” a counterterrorism expert told Newsweek in June. He chose to remain anonymous, but he is not alone in his fears. In New York City and throughout the country, there is an inevitable sense of impending danger among law enforcement officials. But, although Republicans accuse the Obama administration of being soft on terrorism, there has not been a major successful attack on American soil since 9/11.
Many top officials and politicians are saying that the U.S. will be attacked again, and it will be soon. “We must be honest with ourselves,” said John Brennan, the President's top counterterrorism advisor, on May 26. “No nation, no matter how powerful, can prevent every threat from coming to fruition.” He pointed out that the U.S. is more susceptible to attack because the terrorists can take advantage of our free and open society and rely on the so-called “lone wolves” and self-radicalized terrorists.
Attorney General Eric Holder is quick to dismiss this kind of speculation. After the indictments this week in Minnesota, Alabama and California, he said: “These arrests and charges should serve as an unmistakable warning to others who are considering joining or supporting terrorist groups like al-Shabab. If you choose this group, you can expect to find yourself in a United States jail cell or to be a casualty on a Somali battlefield.”
It will take more than tough words from the Attorney General to stop what many think is an inevitable attack on American soil. Although most American Muslims have no interest in extremist ideology and don't want to be stereotyped, the very act of treating them as potential enemies could make matters worse. Some impressionable Muslims decide to join terrorist organizations after reading or listening to English-speaking al-Qaeda propaganda on the Internet. And although conservatives continue to portray Obama as soft on terrorism, his administration continues to kill al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. Since Obama took office in 2009, the military and the CIA have launched over 100 drone attacks against al-Quaeda and the Taliban, more than twice as many as President Bush had ordered during his entire second term.
There is some evidence that these remote-control drone attacks risk what the intelligence community calls “blowback.” Terror suspects have repeatedly told investigators that they were at least partly motivated by the desire to seek revenge for drone strikes. Any military action in a foreign country has consequences. Because the Internet has made it possible for terrorists around the world to be recruited, Western Muslims seeking to bring jihad to America are more common than ever.
Attorney General Holder continued to speak of this week's indictment of the fourteen al-Shabab recruits. “We are seeing an increasing number of individuals – including U.S. citizens – who have become captivated by extremist ideology,” Holder said. “It's a disturbing trend that we have been investigating in recent years and will continue to investigate and root out. But we must also work to prevent this type of radicalization from ever taking hold.”
But is it possible to prevent this type of radicalization from ever taking hold? Most Americans think this is just a pipe dream. President Obama clearly has no inclination to stop killing terrorists with unmanned drones, even if it means killing a few civilians. We may have to deal with the “blowback” sooner rather than later.
Since 2009, over thirty American citizens have been arrested on federal charges related to Islamist extremism. Fourteen people, including seven U.S. citizens, were charged this week with trying to join a Somali terrorist group allied with al-Qaeda, and were tied to two deadly bombings in Uganda. The Justice Department said in a statement that they were charged with trying to join or provide support to the group, known as al-Shabab. They were indicted in Minnesota, Alabama and California.
“Somebody's going to get through,” a counterterrorism expert told Newsweek in June. He chose to remain anonymous, but he is not alone in his fears. In New York City and throughout the country, there is an inevitable sense of impending danger among law enforcement officials. But, although Republicans accuse the Obama administration of being soft on terrorism, there has not been a major successful attack on American soil since 9/11.
Many top officials and politicians are saying that the U.S. will be attacked again, and it will be soon. “We must be honest with ourselves,” said John Brennan, the President's top counterterrorism advisor, on May 26. “No nation, no matter how powerful, can prevent every threat from coming to fruition.” He pointed out that the U.S. is more susceptible to attack because the terrorists can take advantage of our free and open society and rely on the so-called “lone wolves” and self-radicalized terrorists.
Attorney General Eric Holder is quick to dismiss this kind of speculation. After the indictments this week in Minnesota, Alabama and California, he said: “These arrests and charges should serve as an unmistakable warning to others who are considering joining or supporting terrorist groups like al-Shabab. If you choose this group, you can expect to find yourself in a United States jail cell or to be a casualty on a Somali battlefield.”
It will take more than tough words from the Attorney General to stop what many think is an inevitable attack on American soil. Although most American Muslims have no interest in extremist ideology and don't want to be stereotyped, the very act of treating them as potential enemies could make matters worse. Some impressionable Muslims decide to join terrorist organizations after reading or listening to English-speaking al-Qaeda propaganda on the Internet. And although conservatives continue to portray Obama as soft on terrorism, his administration continues to kill al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. Since Obama took office in 2009, the military and the CIA have launched over 100 drone attacks against al-Quaeda and the Taliban, more than twice as many as President Bush had ordered during his entire second term.
There is some evidence that these remote-control drone attacks risk what the intelligence community calls “blowback.” Terror suspects have repeatedly told investigators that they were at least partly motivated by the desire to seek revenge for drone strikes. Any military action in a foreign country has consequences. Because the Internet has made it possible for terrorists around the world to be recruited, Western Muslims seeking to bring jihad to America are more common than ever.
Attorney General Holder continued to speak of this week's indictment of the fourteen al-Shabab recruits. “We are seeing an increasing number of individuals – including U.S. citizens – who have become captivated by extremist ideology,” Holder said. “It's a disturbing trend that we have been investigating in recent years and will continue to investigate and root out. But we must also work to prevent this type of radicalization from ever taking hold.”
But is it possible to prevent this type of radicalization from ever taking hold? Most Americans think this is just a pipe dream. President Obama clearly has no inclination to stop killing terrorists with unmanned drones, even if it means killing a few civilians. We may have to deal with the “blowback” sooner rather than later.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Fighting terrorism is hard work - Times Square bomber makes it look easy
“The harder we work, the luckier we get,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week, objecting to Republican criticism that the Obama administration is relying too much on luck in confronting terrorism. In response to the failed Times Square car bombing attempt on May 1, she admitted that “the vigilance of the American people” is an important element in the fight against terrorism.
Shortly after the failed bombing attempt, President Obama telephoned Times Square vendor Duane Jackson to commend him for alerting authorities to the illegally parked SUV that was left with its engine on, keys in the ignition, and smoke mysteriously seeping out of it. The 58-year-old handbag vendor alerted a passing New York City mounted police officer.
If you want to do damage with a well-rigged car bomb, Times Square, one of the most popular tourist destinations on the planet, is just the place. But luck did come into play. The bomb attempt allegedly carried out by 30-year-old naturalized citizen Faisal Shahzad was about as amateurish as you can get. A clock used as a timer in the car looked like it was purchased at Toys“R”Us. The fertilizer which was supposed to enable the bomb to detonate was incapable of exploding. It turned out the car was less harmless than a late-model Toyota. Because of the inept nature of the attempt, it was originally thought that Shahzad was a “lone wolf”, the phrase which has come into frequent use to describe any nut job who is acting alone because of some misguided political ideology fueled by mental illness. This type of terrorist is scarier, in some ways, because he lives among us.
Obama administration officials said Sunday that the Pakistani Taliban, the group that had originally claimed credit for the failed bombing attempt, did in fact mastermind the plot. Obama's critics can't admit that our success in dismantling these terrorist groups overseas has caused them to attempt unsophisticated attacks such as the one in Times Square. “We haven't bent their determination one bit, but these are smaller, lower-quality efforts,” said Brian Jenkins, a terrorism expert with the Rand Corporation.
The new breed of terrorist, which includes U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan in Fort Hood, Texas, and Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who failed in his attempt to blow up an airliner as it approached Detroit last December, present a difficult challenge for law enforcement agencies. “These are primarily one-offs,” said Jenkins. “That means there's no warning.”
Since we can't have a bomb squad on every corner, what can we do to fight the enemy from within? We can add more cameras, but that does not necessarily deter crime, although it can help find the perpetrators, as demonstrated in London, which has one security camera for every 14 people. We can't stop every car, and we can't have bomb-sniffing dogs in every parking lot. Aside from the fact that the Times Square bomber was so incredibly inept, it was a good example of how things should be done. The street vendors were keeping a vigilant eye on their territory. The authorities were notified. The area was cleared in an orderly fashion. The bomb squad investigated. The mayor congratulated the “best police department in the world” for doing its job.
Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, publicly criticized the Obama administration for its handling of Shahzad, who is a naturalized American citizen, giving him more rights than a foreign suspect. Shahzad should have been treated as an enemy combatant, according to Blair, and many Republicans agree.
After defending the Obama administration's decision to read the Times Square bombing suspect his rights, Attorney General Eric Holder said the administration wants to give interrogators more flexibility when questioning suspected terrorists. Holder said in an interview Sunday on NBC's “Meet the Press” that the administration would shift its approach to Miranda rights in light of evidence that Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.
Under the Supreme Court's 1966 ruling that established the Miranda rights, statements made during a police interrogation are not admissible in court unless a suspect has first been informed of his rights to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.
A little-known exception to the Miranda rights already exists. First crafted by a 1984 Supreme Court ruling, it allows law enforcement to delay reading someone their rights if there is a public safety concern involved. Federal agents reportedly used the Miranda exception for Times Square suspect Shahzad, who was questioned for several hours before being read his rights. Reportedly, after he was read his rights, Shahzad waived them and continued talking.
Attorney General Holder said he is giving “serious consideration to at least modifying” the public-safety exception. “We want the public safety exception to be consistent with the public safety concerns that we now have in the 21st century as opposed to the public safety concerns that we had in the 1980s,” Holder said.
Under Holder's proposal, terror suspects could have statements made during interrogations used against them in court even if they had not been informed of their Miranda rights. “We want to work with the Congress to come up with a way in which we make our public safety exception more flexible and, again, more consistent with the threat we face,” Holder said.
In Shahzad's case, he continued to talk even after he was read his Miranda rights. “He has talked to us and he continues to talk to us,” said Holder.
With the public safety provision being updated, we are basically throwing out the Miranda rights of suspected terrorists. If it makes us safer, most Americans would be willing to go along with this. Evidently, it didn't make any difference in the current situation, as Shahzad continues to talk. On the other hand, Sen. Joseph Lieberman has proposed that suspected terrorists, if they are American citizens, be stripped of their citizenship. This is where most of us have drawn the line. Lieberman has evidently backed down after the public backlash that followed his proposal.
Along with more leeway in the questioning of citizens accused of terrorism, the public needs to continue to be vigilant. The Republicans' criticism that the Obama administration is relying too much on luck in confronting terrorism has some merit. In this case, he was lucky. But Obama has to be credited with dismantling the terrorists capability to conduct large-scale, centrally-directed operations. By using the so-called “lone wolves”, terrorist groups have made the news recently by being dramatically unsuccessful, whether by wearing inoperative exploding underwear, or by putting together a car bomb without proper explosive material. As terrorism expert Jenkins said: “Clearly, there's a quality-control problem.”
In the interest of public safety, President Obama has employed a highly efficient military force overseas, which has the use of modern and efficient equipment such as unmanned Predator drones. But with all the high-tech equipment we're using and billions of dollars we're spending in the fight against terrorism, it was ultimately a handbag vendor and an NYPD cop on horseback who were the first line of defense in Times Square. But if the bomber had been a little more efficient, all hell would have broken out.
Shortly after the failed bombing attempt, President Obama telephoned Times Square vendor Duane Jackson to commend him for alerting authorities to the illegally parked SUV that was left with its engine on, keys in the ignition, and smoke mysteriously seeping out of it. The 58-year-old handbag vendor alerted a passing New York City mounted police officer.
If you want to do damage with a well-rigged car bomb, Times Square, one of the most popular tourist destinations on the planet, is just the place. But luck did come into play. The bomb attempt allegedly carried out by 30-year-old naturalized citizen Faisal Shahzad was about as amateurish as you can get. A clock used as a timer in the car looked like it was purchased at Toys“R”Us. The fertilizer which was supposed to enable the bomb to detonate was incapable of exploding. It turned out the car was less harmless than a late-model Toyota. Because of the inept nature of the attempt, it was originally thought that Shahzad was a “lone wolf”, the phrase which has come into frequent use to describe any nut job who is acting alone because of some misguided political ideology fueled by mental illness. This type of terrorist is scarier, in some ways, because he lives among us.
Obama administration officials said Sunday that the Pakistani Taliban, the group that had originally claimed credit for the failed bombing attempt, did in fact mastermind the plot. Obama's critics can't admit that our success in dismantling these terrorist groups overseas has caused them to attempt unsophisticated attacks such as the one in Times Square. “We haven't bent their determination one bit, but these are smaller, lower-quality efforts,” said Brian Jenkins, a terrorism expert with the Rand Corporation.
The new breed of terrorist, which includes U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan in Fort Hood, Texas, and Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who failed in his attempt to blow up an airliner as it approached Detroit last December, present a difficult challenge for law enforcement agencies. “These are primarily one-offs,” said Jenkins. “That means there's no warning.”
Since we can't have a bomb squad on every corner, what can we do to fight the enemy from within? We can add more cameras, but that does not necessarily deter crime, although it can help find the perpetrators, as demonstrated in London, which has one security camera for every 14 people. We can't stop every car, and we can't have bomb-sniffing dogs in every parking lot. Aside from the fact that the Times Square bomber was so incredibly inept, it was a good example of how things should be done. The street vendors were keeping a vigilant eye on their territory. The authorities were notified. The area was cleared in an orderly fashion. The bomb squad investigated. The mayor congratulated the “best police department in the world” for doing its job.
Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, publicly criticized the Obama administration for its handling of Shahzad, who is a naturalized American citizen, giving him more rights than a foreign suspect. Shahzad should have been treated as an enemy combatant, according to Blair, and many Republicans agree.
After defending the Obama administration's decision to read the Times Square bombing suspect his rights, Attorney General Eric Holder said the administration wants to give interrogators more flexibility when questioning suspected terrorists. Holder said in an interview Sunday on NBC's “Meet the Press” that the administration would shift its approach to Miranda rights in light of evidence that Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.
Under the Supreme Court's 1966 ruling that established the Miranda rights, statements made during a police interrogation are not admissible in court unless a suspect has first been informed of his rights to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.
A little-known exception to the Miranda rights already exists. First crafted by a 1984 Supreme Court ruling, it allows law enforcement to delay reading someone their rights if there is a public safety concern involved. Federal agents reportedly used the Miranda exception for Times Square suspect Shahzad, who was questioned for several hours before being read his rights. Reportedly, after he was read his rights, Shahzad waived them and continued talking.
Attorney General Holder said he is giving “serious consideration to at least modifying” the public-safety exception. “We want the public safety exception to be consistent with the public safety concerns that we now have in the 21st century as opposed to the public safety concerns that we had in the 1980s,” Holder said.
Under Holder's proposal, terror suspects could have statements made during interrogations used against them in court even if they had not been informed of their Miranda rights. “We want to work with the Congress to come up with a way in which we make our public safety exception more flexible and, again, more consistent with the threat we face,” Holder said.
In Shahzad's case, he continued to talk even after he was read his Miranda rights. “He has talked to us and he continues to talk to us,” said Holder.
With the public safety provision being updated, we are basically throwing out the Miranda rights of suspected terrorists. If it makes us safer, most Americans would be willing to go along with this. Evidently, it didn't make any difference in the current situation, as Shahzad continues to talk. On the other hand, Sen. Joseph Lieberman has proposed that suspected terrorists, if they are American citizens, be stripped of their citizenship. This is where most of us have drawn the line. Lieberman has evidently backed down after the public backlash that followed his proposal.
Along with more leeway in the questioning of citizens accused of terrorism, the public needs to continue to be vigilant. The Republicans' criticism that the Obama administration is relying too much on luck in confronting terrorism has some merit. In this case, he was lucky. But Obama has to be credited with dismantling the terrorists capability to conduct large-scale, centrally-directed operations. By using the so-called “lone wolves”, terrorist groups have made the news recently by being dramatically unsuccessful, whether by wearing inoperative exploding underwear, or by putting together a car bomb without proper explosive material. As terrorism expert Jenkins said: “Clearly, there's a quality-control problem.”
In the interest of public safety, President Obama has employed a highly efficient military force overseas, which has the use of modern and efficient equipment such as unmanned Predator drones. But with all the high-tech equipment we're using and billions of dollars we're spending in the fight against terrorism, it was ultimately a handbag vendor and an NYPD cop on horseback who were the first line of defense in Times Square. But if the bomber had been a little more efficient, all hell would have broken out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
