Doug M. Cummings's Blog, page 5
June 9, 2013
Who's Listening?
Although President Obama and the National Security Agency assure us they aren't listening in to our telephone conversations or reading our email or text messages, they have admitted to using various monitoring programs designed to fight terrorism. Programs that the ACLU types and others are objecting to most strenuously.
In reply, government officials, including the president, have replied to criticism by saying, essentially, "No pain, no gain."
According to the president, "It's important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience," Obama said. "We're going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity."
The most recent revelations about the program come from a 29-year-old NSA contractor and former CIA employee who has identified himself as the source of the leak and tells reporters he spoke out because he realized he was part of a program that was doing more harm than good. In his opinion.
So, on the one hand, we have a guy who, presumably, was sworn to secrecy but decided that, since he disagreed with the government, he would speak out anyway. And on the other we have a government that is spying on its citizens but assures us that it's really for our own good.
It's an interesting dilemma.
Is the private contractor who spoke up a whistle blower? Or, as some have suggested, is he a spy for the Chinese government? Should he be lauded or prosecuted...or both?
In the broadcasting business, there's a saying: "Every camera is live; every microphone is on." It's designed to remind those of us who sometimes speak out of turn that our words may be heard by many, many more folks than we intended...sometimes with disastrous results.
So let's change it up a bit for these more challenging times:
"Every camera is live; every microphone is on. Every email, text, post to Facebook and Twitter and Pinterest and Tumblr, and every picture of our children (and our critters, God bless them) , can be intercepted, analyzed, recorded, and filed as a classified document which can then be used against us in a court of law or when we want to take an overseas cruise or go fishing in Canada."
And, frankly, if my government feels that to protect me from a terrorist attack, it has to assign someone to read about my cat's diarrhea,I hope they choose a well-vetted, trusted employee who won't go running off at the mouth.
May 26, 2013
Is It Gay Bashing...or the Law...or Both?
I'm confused.
In Florida, an eighteen-year-old high school student is charged with two felonies for having a sexual relationship with a fourteen-year-old. Both claim it was a consensual relationship, despite the fact that Florida law says children fourteen and under cannot consent to sexual activity.
We've all heard of cases like this before. Perhaps some of us in our wild youth even worried a bit about the statutory requirements when we wanted to date someone younger. I seem to recall learning the phrase, "age of consent" when I was about seventeen or so.
While it seems clear that what happened in Florida was a violation of law, and no one should be surprised that a prosecutor filed the heavy charges, what has me wondering is the fact that thousands of people have either joined a Facebook page, or signed a Change.org petition, asking the State Attorney to drop the charges.The term "gay bashing" has been thrown around quite a bit and the GLBT community and the ACLU have also come on board.
But does the fact that defendant and victim are both girls really matter? It doesn't to me. Sure, it's heart wrenching to see the very innocent looking eighteen-year-old sobbing in front of news cameras and worrying that her life is ruined...but she undoubtedly knew the consequences of her actions. And, she yesterday turned down a plea agreement that would have, the prosecutor says, eventually left her with only a misdemeanor conviction on her record.
She broke the law. Whatever the motivations of the parents of the younger girl in bringing the case to law-enforcement, they and the state have the statutes on their side. As the sheriff who investigated the complaint points out, had this been a case of boyfriend/girlfriend, it wouldn't have gotten near the attention.
So why all the noise? Why are so many people ready to turn this into a matter of sex...when what it really is...is a matter of law?
In Florida, an eighteen-year-old high school student is charged with two felonies for having a sexual relationship with a fourteen-year-old. Both claim it was a consensual relationship, despite the fact that Florida law says children fourteen and under cannot consent to sexual activity.
We've all heard of cases like this before. Perhaps some of us in our wild youth even worried a bit about the statutory requirements when we wanted to date someone younger. I seem to recall learning the phrase, "age of consent" when I was about seventeen or so.
While it seems clear that what happened in Florida was a violation of law, and no one should be surprised that a prosecutor filed the heavy charges, what has me wondering is the fact that thousands of people have either joined a Facebook page, or signed a Change.org petition, asking the State Attorney to drop the charges.The term "gay bashing" has been thrown around quite a bit and the GLBT community and the ACLU have also come on board.
But does the fact that defendant and victim are both girls really matter? It doesn't to me. Sure, it's heart wrenching to see the very innocent looking eighteen-year-old sobbing in front of news cameras and worrying that her life is ruined...but she undoubtedly knew the consequences of her actions. And, she yesterday turned down a plea agreement that would have, the prosecutor says, eventually left her with only a misdemeanor conviction on her record.
She broke the law. Whatever the motivations of the parents of the younger girl in bringing the case to law-enforcement, they and the state have the statutes on their side. As the sheriff who investigated the complaint points out, had this been a case of boyfriend/girlfriend, it wouldn't have gotten near the attention.
So why all the noise? Why are so many people ready to turn this into a matter of sex...when what it really is...is a matter of law?
January 21, 2013
"Hold My Hat and Gloves?" Oh Please!
I've been having a great time watching the historic Inauguration, or Inaugurabama, ceremonies. The media, everyone involved, seems to be enjoying the moment, particularly the parade and now "the walk." The respect they have all shown the President, and their excitement at being a part of history, is evident.
But Don Lemon, once the bad boy of Chicago media, has dsiplayed some incredible arrogance.
Standing with a couple of members of the Pennsylvania National Guard and doing his live shot, he actually had the temerity and rudeness to ask, on camera, the Guardsmen to, "Hold my hat and gloves, will you?"
C'mon, Don. You're a tiny twig in the media maelstrom surrounding the Presidential Inauguration, and about as far down the ladder as anyone could be from members of the armed services who volunteered to help provide security.
What were you thinking, you arrogant ass?
But Don Lemon, once the bad boy of Chicago media, has dsiplayed some incredible arrogance.
Standing with a couple of members of the Pennsylvania National Guard and doing his live shot, he actually had the temerity and rudeness to ask, on camera, the Guardsmen to, "Hold my hat and gloves, will you?"
C'mon, Don. You're a tiny twig in the media maelstrom surrounding the Presidential Inauguration, and about as far down the ladder as anyone could be from members of the armed services who volunteered to help provide security.
What were you thinking, you arrogant ass?
January 17, 2013
What's Innit for Us?
Chicago politicians, particularly the Rahmster, should be vibrating with rage.
Anytime Washington passes anything the pols of the Windy City are sure to ask, "What's innit for us?"
But not a single one of President Obama's executive orders on gun control does a damn thing to help control Chicago's murder rate.
To be sure, there's plenty of paper shuffling ahead for the federal bureaucrats and even a bit to pass along to the mental health and medical communities. There are opportunities for industrial filmmakers, too. What do you think, "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign." actually means? It's gonna be a video and a few posters.
Where's the executive order on creating, at federal expense, a federal/state/city/county gun task force pilot project to combat gun violence in Chicago? An effort that would bring together all levels of law enforcement from BATFE, to Homeland Security, to U.S. Marshals, to city and Cook County officers, to cops from the collar suburbs where straw man gun purchases are often made? A street tough gun squad, call them the New Untouchables if you like, backed by federal prosecutors flexing the muscle of federal laws to lock up the more serious gun offenders and federal judges to make certain they can't I-bond their way to freedom. Where's that Executive Order?
Where's the order that says pull in federal resources from outside the state as needed to provide even heavier manpower for such a task force? Put those new faces undercover in targeted areas to locate the sources of illegal weapons and organize heavy felony gun buys.
The President may talk the talk, and shed a crocodile tear about Newtown, but as far as kids and other innocents getting shot on their porches in Chicago neighborhoods, as far as his street cred on his own block is concerned, he didn't do squat.
Anytime Washington passes anything the pols of the Windy City are sure to ask, "What's innit for us?"
But not a single one of President Obama's executive orders on gun control does a damn thing to help control Chicago's murder rate.
To be sure, there's plenty of paper shuffling ahead for the federal bureaucrats and even a bit to pass along to the mental health and medical communities. There are opportunities for industrial filmmakers, too. What do you think, "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign." actually means? It's gonna be a video and a few posters.
Where's the executive order on creating, at federal expense, a federal/state/city/county gun task force pilot project to combat gun violence in Chicago? An effort that would bring together all levels of law enforcement from BATFE, to Homeland Security, to U.S. Marshals, to city and Cook County officers, to cops from the collar suburbs where straw man gun purchases are often made? A street tough gun squad, call them the New Untouchables if you like, backed by federal prosecutors flexing the muscle of federal laws to lock up the more serious gun offenders and federal judges to make certain they can't I-bond their way to freedom. Where's that Executive Order?
Where's the order that says pull in federal resources from outside the state as needed to provide even heavier manpower for such a task force? Put those new faces undercover in targeted areas to locate the sources of illegal weapons and organize heavy felony gun buys.
The President may talk the talk, and shed a crocodile tear about Newtown, but as far as kids and other innocents getting shot on their porches in Chicago neighborhoods, as far as his street cred on his own block is concerned, he didn't do squat.
January 14, 2013
Want an Assault Rifle? Let's Find Out How Easy It Is To Get One
Will Congress ban the so-called semi-automatic assault weapon?
I doubt it. The Biden Commission's report is due out this week, hastily pulled together in the wake of the Newtown shootings. It may call for such a ban but I don't read about much enthusiasm for it from either side of the aisle.
To support such legislation would mean fighting one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States. Some legislators are willing to do so. Most are not willing to antogonize the National Rifle Association.
Would such a ban keep assault rifles out of the hands of those determined to kill innocents? Highly unlikely.
If a nutjob wants one, he doesn't have to go to a store to buy it. I think there are plenty of private sellers, legal and illegal, who are looking to turn a buck off the rifles already in their closets.
Don't believe it? Consider doing some easy research to discover if I'm right.
Whether you believe in owning firearms or not, you undoubtedly know people who do. First, see if they personally have, say, an AR-15 style semi-automatic assault rifle they'd like to sell you. If they don't, ask if they know anyone who does. Don't consider cost. Don't consider the logistics of acquisition: it doesn't matter if you're in Chicago and the would-be seller is in Phoenix. See if the item is available to you, regardless of easily hurdled obstacles.
I bet you'll quickly discover how easy it would be for a run of the mill person on the street to acquire such a deadly weapon without ever going to a gun store and without enduring a background check.
Can't find a rifle? Take your research a step further. Follow the same instructions as above but settle for a semi-automatic handgun capable of accomodating a magazine (sometimes called a "clip) of at least fifteen or, preferably, thirty rounds. Handguns, after all, are blamed for far more deaths in this country than assault rifles.
Of course, I am not suggesting that you follow through and buy any of the weapons you're researching, especially if you don't have the requisite credentials from a bureaucratic and a safety standpoint (ie: if you are not legally allowed to own a firearm and if you have never taken a firearm safety training course).
Let me know what your philosophical visit to the "dark side" reveals and how you feel about it.
I doubt it. The Biden Commission's report is due out this week, hastily pulled together in the wake of the Newtown shootings. It may call for such a ban but I don't read about much enthusiasm for it from either side of the aisle.
To support such legislation would mean fighting one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States. Some legislators are willing to do so. Most are not willing to antogonize the National Rifle Association.
Would such a ban keep assault rifles out of the hands of those determined to kill innocents? Highly unlikely.
If a nutjob wants one, he doesn't have to go to a store to buy it. I think there are plenty of private sellers, legal and illegal, who are looking to turn a buck off the rifles already in their closets.
Don't believe it? Consider doing some easy research to discover if I'm right.
Whether you believe in owning firearms or not, you undoubtedly know people who do. First, see if they personally have, say, an AR-15 style semi-automatic assault rifle they'd like to sell you. If they don't, ask if they know anyone who does. Don't consider cost. Don't consider the logistics of acquisition: it doesn't matter if you're in Chicago and the would-be seller is in Phoenix. See if the item is available to you, regardless of easily hurdled obstacles.
I bet you'll quickly discover how easy it would be for a run of the mill person on the street to acquire such a deadly weapon without ever going to a gun store and without enduring a background check.
Can't find a rifle? Take your research a step further. Follow the same instructions as above but settle for a semi-automatic handgun capable of accomodating a magazine (sometimes called a "clip) of at least fifteen or, preferably, thirty rounds. Handguns, after all, are blamed for far more deaths in this country than assault rifles.
Of course, I am not suggesting that you follow through and buy any of the weapons you're researching, especially if you don't have the requisite credentials from a bureaucratic and a safety standpoint (ie: if you are not legally allowed to own a firearm and if you have never taken a firearm safety training course).
Let me know what your philosophical visit to the "dark side" reveals and how you feel about it.
December 24, 2012
After Assault Weapons...What Then?
To borrow lyrics from the venerable Christmas song, it's beginning to look a lot like hysteria, everywhere you go.
From the attention-grabbing Madea Benjamin of "Code Pink" screaming about "NRA bullies" as she was dragged from the NRA's news conference this week, to New York Governor Mario Cuomo acknowledging that "confiscation" (his word) of legally purchased firearms is part of his state's stricter approach to gun violence, to CNN's Piers Morgan and the media terrorizers harping every other minute of every newscast about assault weapons, our commercialized Christmas has been regularly interrupted by rantings about how to solve the violence crisis.
Sure, we can, and probably will, ban assault weapons. It's the chest-thumping, cheap, reaction typical after enough children have been killed. It's also a little like putting thousands of dollars worth of window dressing on a slum building and calling it rehabilitation.
The meaty approaches aren't easy or cheap. Politicians will give them lip service but balk at the cost.
One simple and immediate change? Instead of handing Coach/Prinicpal/Custodian/Teacher Jones a .45 to strap to his hip, bring back school counselors, at all levels and give them authority within the school hierarchy. Let teachers assign math problems. Leave the job of diagnosing emotional problems to professionals trained to tell if little Billy is a quiet child or just quietly planning to hose down his third grade class with Daddy's favorite war-relic flamethrower.
But sweeping changes are required in the way we approach mental health treatment on all levels.
Parents shouldn't have to file criminal charges to get help for their kids with violent tendencies. Instead of boxes and blankets in alleys and homeless shelters, those suffering from severe emotional illness should be hospitalized in psychiatric facilities just as up-to-date as their medical counterparts. And the federal government must twist the arms of state bureaucrats in demanding they stay up to date adding the names of those adjudicated with mental problems to the gun background check system or NICS.
Don't get me started about violent video games. They're the way many troubled kids acquire the eye-hand co-ordination and killing lust that sends them in search of human targets. Just read Lt. Col (Ret) David Grossman's comments from an interview in Executive Intelligence Review:
"If you truly dwell on the magnitude of what you are doing when you kill another human being; if you truly dwell on the reality of another living, vital person, who is loved, and thinks and feels; that's a very difficult thing to do. You've got to separate yourself from the humanity of the person you are killing—turn them into just a target. And the best mechanism we ever found for doing that, was this killing simulator, in which, instead of using bullseye targets, as we did in World War II, we transitioned to a man-made silhouette, and we made killing a conditioned reflex. The same phenomena that the military and law enforcement uses to enable killing—which is done with the safeguard of discipline—is being done indiscriminately to our children with violent video games."
Will the President, Congress and the hyenas of the media take the really tough approach and along with guns, deal with mental health issues and video games?
Sure.
Right after we fall off the fiscal cliff.
From the attention-grabbing Madea Benjamin of "Code Pink" screaming about "NRA bullies" as she was dragged from the NRA's news conference this week, to New York Governor Mario Cuomo acknowledging that "confiscation" (his word) of legally purchased firearms is part of his state's stricter approach to gun violence, to CNN's Piers Morgan and the media terrorizers harping every other minute of every newscast about assault weapons, our commercialized Christmas has been regularly interrupted by rantings about how to solve the violence crisis.
Sure, we can, and probably will, ban assault weapons. It's the chest-thumping, cheap, reaction typical after enough children have been killed. It's also a little like putting thousands of dollars worth of window dressing on a slum building and calling it rehabilitation.
The meaty approaches aren't easy or cheap. Politicians will give them lip service but balk at the cost.
One simple and immediate change? Instead of handing Coach/Prinicpal/Custodian/Teacher Jones a .45 to strap to his hip, bring back school counselors, at all levels and give them authority within the school hierarchy. Let teachers assign math problems. Leave the job of diagnosing emotional problems to professionals trained to tell if little Billy is a quiet child or just quietly planning to hose down his third grade class with Daddy's favorite war-relic flamethrower.
But sweeping changes are required in the way we approach mental health treatment on all levels.
Parents shouldn't have to file criminal charges to get help for their kids with violent tendencies. Instead of boxes and blankets in alleys and homeless shelters, those suffering from severe emotional illness should be hospitalized in psychiatric facilities just as up-to-date as their medical counterparts. And the federal government must twist the arms of state bureaucrats in demanding they stay up to date adding the names of those adjudicated with mental problems to the gun background check system or NICS.
Don't get me started about violent video games. They're the way many troubled kids acquire the eye-hand co-ordination and killing lust that sends them in search of human targets. Just read Lt. Col (Ret) David Grossman's comments from an interview in Executive Intelligence Review:
"If you truly dwell on the magnitude of what you are doing when you kill another human being; if you truly dwell on the reality of another living, vital person, who is loved, and thinks and feels; that's a very difficult thing to do. You've got to separate yourself from the humanity of the person you are killing—turn them into just a target. And the best mechanism we ever found for doing that, was this killing simulator, in which, instead of using bullseye targets, as we did in World War II, we transitioned to a man-made silhouette, and we made killing a conditioned reflex. The same phenomena that the military and law enforcement uses to enable killing—which is done with the safeguard of discipline—is being done indiscriminately to our children with violent video games."
Will the President, Congress and the hyenas of the media take the really tough approach and along with guns, deal with mental health issues and video games?
Sure.
Right after we fall off the fiscal cliff.
March 29, 2012
For Once, I'm Not Taking Sides
Perhaps you've noticed how I get pretty mouthy on subjects I'm passionate about.
Regarding the Trayvon Martin case, I'm not taking sides.
I don't have the facts. None of us does.
What we have is the media's reporting of what appears, essentially, to be a "he said/the 9-1-1 tapes said/the-girlfriend-who-wasn't-there said situation.
It seems the police have earwitnesses, at least one of whom has been all over television turning what she heard into conjecture. Removing that, her facts, if I interpret them correctly, are: she heard screaming and then a gunshot.
Some media outlets have reported Trayvon was an innocent. Some others have reported he was the subject of a police search at his high school and found in possession of a possible "burglary tool" along with some jewelry that couldn't be accounted for.
I have several different kinds of that particular "burglary tool"(a screwdriver) in my basement.
Some folks offer that Zimmerman overstepped the bounds of his Neighborhood Watch duties. His brother says he wasn't even "on duty" that night, but rather headed to a store. Some point out that he acted contrary to what a police dispatcher told him to do. His lawyer calls the dispatcher's words, "a request, not an order."
It goes on and on, back and forth.
Let me say this.
In my early twenties, there were times when I foolishly acted outside the scope of my authority, both as a civilian witness and as a law-enforcement officer. I'm fortunate that my mouth, and my good intentions, did not result in physical harm to anyone, least of all me.
Sometimes reasoned thinking is impossible during an adrenaline rush.
I've also been in situations where I drew a gun too quickly and then had to defend myself against individuals trying to take it away from me. Shooting them was not an option. That happens to cops, time to time. I imagine it happens occasionally to civilians who carry guns for self-defense, too.
I have no idea what Zimmerman did or didn't do. I have no idea what young Trayvon Martin did, or didn't do.
All I know is that people are expressing opinions on an incredibly volatile subject based on what the lawyers call, "facts not in evidence."
That, my friends, could get someone hurt.
Regarding the Trayvon Martin case, I'm not taking sides.
I don't have the facts. None of us does.
What we have is the media's reporting of what appears, essentially, to be a "he said/the 9-1-1 tapes said/the-girlfriend-who-wasn't-there said situation.
It seems the police have earwitnesses, at least one of whom has been all over television turning what she heard into conjecture. Removing that, her facts, if I interpret them correctly, are: she heard screaming and then a gunshot.
Some media outlets have reported Trayvon was an innocent. Some others have reported he was the subject of a police search at his high school and found in possession of a possible "burglary tool" along with some jewelry that couldn't be accounted for.
I have several different kinds of that particular "burglary tool"(a screwdriver) in my basement.
Some folks offer that Zimmerman overstepped the bounds of his Neighborhood Watch duties. His brother says he wasn't even "on duty" that night, but rather headed to a store. Some point out that he acted contrary to what a police dispatcher told him to do. His lawyer calls the dispatcher's words, "a request, not an order."
It goes on and on, back and forth.
Let me say this.
In my early twenties, there were times when I foolishly acted outside the scope of my authority, both as a civilian witness and as a law-enforcement officer. I'm fortunate that my mouth, and my good intentions, did not result in physical harm to anyone, least of all me.
Sometimes reasoned thinking is impossible during an adrenaline rush.
I've also been in situations where I drew a gun too quickly and then had to defend myself against individuals trying to take it away from me. Shooting them was not an option. That happens to cops, time to time. I imagine it happens occasionally to civilians who carry guns for self-defense, too.
I have no idea what Zimmerman did or didn't do. I have no idea what young Trayvon Martin did, or didn't do.
All I know is that people are expressing opinions on an incredibly volatile subject based on what the lawyers call, "facts not in evidence."
That, my friends, could get someone hurt.
March 16, 2012
Blago's Last Hurrah (If We're Lucky)
The Blago coverage this week neatly sums up the idiocy of the media, local and national. As if we needed another reminder after this political season. Not one Chicago station had the guts to give it a two minute hit and move on. It was newsgasm to the end.
Our former governor is a sociopath at best, a psychopath at worst. A flaccid charmer without the ability to feel anything except for himself. Blogger Rob Feder's use of the word "pathological" just scrapes the surface. We seldom give the correct definition to Evil but Blago surely comes close. He may care for his kids, but in the way some people do about their relatives' pets.
Goudie's question to Blago's wife ("Do you plan to stay with him?")outraged many but probably reveals insider knowledge and illustrates a given about Blago's future. Patty will stick with him about as long as a cowboy with a hobbled horse.
It's tough on the kids, yes. For awhile. Best they're away from him.
What makes me the most ill about the whole disgusting affair, however, are the people who still worship and support this bastard.
More than anything else, Blago's backers illustrate why Illinois government is in such a shambles: we are a state and nation of mindless sheep who believe only what we hear in the latest and best served soundbite.
What's terrifying is that there are others . . . many, many, others . . . holding, or aspiring to, public office whose rapacious lust for power overwhelms that of our former Governor.
They don't have goofy hairjobs. They don't dance for the cameras. And you won't see them coming until they have you by the throat.
Our former governor is a sociopath at best, a psychopath at worst. A flaccid charmer without the ability to feel anything except for himself. Blogger Rob Feder's use of the word "pathological" just scrapes the surface. We seldom give the correct definition to Evil but Blago surely comes close. He may care for his kids, but in the way some people do about their relatives' pets.
Goudie's question to Blago's wife ("Do you plan to stay with him?")outraged many but probably reveals insider knowledge and illustrates a given about Blago's future. Patty will stick with him about as long as a cowboy with a hobbled horse.
It's tough on the kids, yes. For awhile. Best they're away from him.
What makes me the most ill about the whole disgusting affair, however, are the people who still worship and support this bastard.
More than anything else, Blago's backers illustrate why Illinois government is in such a shambles: we are a state and nation of mindless sheep who believe only what we hear in the latest and best served soundbite.
What's terrifying is that there are others . . . many, many, others . . . holding, or aspiring to, public office whose rapacious lust for power overwhelms that of our former Governor.
They don't have goofy hairjobs. They don't dance for the cameras. And you won't see them coming until they have you by the throat.
