Is identity theft an issue of national security?

Big brother knows all, right? Government agencies keep sensitive information on all of us - social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, birth dates. Even the way, your tax return ends up safely in your checking account is mysterious. But this doesn't worry us on a daily basis because the government keeps this information under lock and key, secure on those trusty hard drives of theirs. But what happens when those outdated computers are sold? General protocol is wiping the hard drive clean. But that doesn't always happen.

An article in today's New York Times described how New Jersey nearly sold confidential data from old computers in departments such as the judiciary branch, the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Office of Administrative Law. Some glitch or general bureaucratic laziness allowed the hard drives to slip by to be auctioned, still filled with sensitive data. Only an investigation by the comptroller prevented this from happening.

I found this to be an interesting contrast with the discussions we've been having in class about preventing the press from printing something that might be an issue of national security. So far the press has won, as with the Pentagon Papers, but the issues continually arise. And when they do arise, the politicians fight hand and foot to prevent the information from being printed. Yet, a situation like New Jersey's can still happen, that confidential information can be almost accidentally auctioned making the government responsible for the identity theft of thousands of New Jersey residents.

Does this make it seem like certain politicians when evoking the phrase, "national security" are really just trying to save their own hides? While the information being disclosed is not war secrets, isn't the revelation of this information still a major issue of security?

First Amendment Rights at Funerals

There were several heated letters to the editor in response to Wednesday's NYT's article entitled, "Justices Uphold Hateful Protest as Free Speech." The article stated the Supreme Court's decision in the Snyder v. Phelps case: religious groups protesting America's acceptance of homosexuality at a gay marine's funeral is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

These two letters were my favorite:

To the Editor:

Re “Justices Uphold Hateful Protest as Free Speech” (front page, March 3):

I think the right to a solemn, private, dignified and peaceful funeral far outweighs the right to protest, particularly if the person being buried has nothing to do with the protest.

Therefore I think the Supreme Court gravely erred in Snyder v. Phelps, in which it sided with a religious group to permit it to protest at a military funeral against the American policy of allowing gays in the military.

Groups will always have opportunities to protest. But a family gets only one opportunity to properly grieve a child’s death.

Kenneth L. Zimmerman
Huntington Beach, Calif., March 3, 2011

To the Editor:

On reading the free speech decision of the Supreme Court, I realized that two “parts” of me were reacting. One part is a rabbi who has officiated at hundreds of funerals. The other part is a patriot who went to military school and served in the Air Force.

The rabbinical part was sickened by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kan., and initially surprised by the Supreme Court decision. I couldn’t imagine listening to the contemptible ravings of a group outside a funeral home while eulogizing the deceased, who sacrificed his life for his country, and trying to comfort the mourners inside.

The patriotic part has been just as sickened when witnessing the American flag being burned, because I am unashamedly in love with my country.

But our courts have decided that both are protected by the First Amendment. When I combine the two parts as a patriotic rabbi, I understand that no sooner do we limit one detestable act than other restrictions may subtly follow, until we reach the point when the hallowed words of the First Amendment become hollow.

After my initial reaction, the court’s decision helped me all the more to understand why I love my country. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Jack D. Spiro
Richmond, Va., March 3, 2011

Which one are we to accept? Is there wiggle room in the First Amendment for grieving families and should protesters not be allowed at military funerals just because of common decency? Or like the 2nd letter said, if we place one limit on the First Amendment, does the entire thing cease to have meaning?

Actual Breaking News

When we were reading about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal last week and how the media became way too immersed in the affair for nearly a year, the part that baffled me most is how NBC interrupted the 1998 Super Bowl to basically say, "We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to say exactly what ABC just said about the Clinton-Lewinsky case."

That got me thinking what was actually considered breaking news and which news most viewers would agree trumped their regularly scheduled programming. Here are a few that I found:

1) March 30, 1981 - Reagan Assassination Attempt. Below is a link to ABC's News bulletin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGUrBfp8G2Y

2) January 28, 1986 - The Challenger space shuttle exploded about a minute after it launched. Below is a link to CBS's coverage of the event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8umF4frzMs

3) June 17th 1994 - O.J. Simpson Police Chase

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxqP1_MFPnc


And of course for those of us who were not watching it live downtown, 9/11.

Do you think these events are all worthy of the term, "breaking news" and would you accept these interruptions of your TV shows? Can anyone remember any other breaking news events that they felt lived up to their title or not?

Obama's talking issues : Gay Marriage

We spoke in class about how both the media and political candidates for presidency seem to discuss everything, but the issues. Yet Obama has taken a stand in favor of gay marriage (politically not personally) and called the alternative "unconstitutional" and as today's article in the Times shows, this provoked the media to start asking questions on the issues, or at least this issue for starters.

While Obama had previously dragged his feet on this specific issue, his rationale for taking a stand now is he has "calculated that the benefits of responding to his base outweigh the risks of upsetting conservatives who wouldn’t be voting for him anyway."

Republicans were expected to rise up in opposition, but aside from Huckaby's reaction that the president's decision was “utterly inexplicable,” most Republican reactions were fairly mild if they reacted at all. Is it truly because, as the Times says, gay marriage is no longer a conservative issue? Is the media just not asking the right tough questions to draw out clear answers? Or are we back to the assumption that even now after Obama has taken a stand on an issue that no one really wants to discuss the issues?

Clooney for President?

He might fit the ideal visual for president - tall, handsome, probably has a pretty good handshake, and yes he plays a presidential candidate in his upcoming movie The Ides of March, but is he even capable of delving into real politics let alone leading this nation?

Yet in an interview with Newsweek following his trip to South Sudan, he was asked if he'd run. He's helping people achieve independence after years of civil war. Let's call him a good humanitarian with great funds to back it up, but a prime political candidate?

His response to if he'd enter conventional politics was, “I f--ked too many chicks and did too many drugs, and that’s the truth.” Many would say considering the (no longer) private lives of many politicians, this would hardly be a disqualifying factor.

But Clooney did follow that with a statement that is very relevant to our recent classes: "A smart campaigner, he believes, “would start from the beginning by saying, ‘I did it all. I drank the bong water. Now let’s talk about issues.’" Maybe he is politically qualified after all. At least he recognizes that the main focus on the current political contenders is on their past misdeeds, scandals and current wardrobes.

Objective vs. slanted

While reading chapter 12 in our Press book, the essay on "Mobilizing Citizen Participation" I began to think about this ideal of objectivity that media is supposed to aspire to. The chapter mentioned that overall reactions to reading newspapers are positive, but there can often be negative reactions to TV news. TV reporters seems to insert their own slanted views on the issues more so than newspapers.

But if the goal is to attract readers' attention and keep them informed of the current issues, then maybe a form of media that makes people a little angry is more appropriate. The reactions to newspapers that are striving for objectivity may not be negative, but I'd imagine there are far less reactions at all. When media strives to be objective and thus keep everyone happy, doesn't it allow for more passivity than if media leans to one side? Overly opinionated news programs may anger viewers who don't agree with those opinions, but they will have to be informed of the issues before they disagree with the news broadcaster.

Point being, before I continue to ramble, should objectivity truly be the ultimate goal if by not offending either side, it allows the viewers/readers to ignore the issues altogether?