Blogcritics Author: Shaun Manley

Redefining Privacy so Government Can Pry? Completely Ludicrous

Shaun Manley — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:55:19 EST

To completely redefine privacy because of what we volunteer to put online these days is ludicrous.
There are times when a story, or a person, just makes you want to smack your forehead in disbelief. Take, for example, 68-year-old Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, who wants Americans to redefine what privacy really is.Last I checked, and you may have a different dictionary than I, but privacy meant "the state of...

Let's Talk About Sex: Education in America

Shaun Manley — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:27 EDT

A new approach to a sensitive subject is needed to make a natural part of life less taboo.
There are moments in the day when you just have to scratch your head and wonder what people are thinking. A perfect example is a woman in Lewiston, Maine, who walked into two public libraries and checked out an acclaimed sex education book. No big deal, right? People check books out from the library every day. Well, not everyone checks out the same...

Satire: Jesus Speaks - "Michael Vick Has Not Found Me"

Shaun Manley — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:32:01 EDT

Son of God says Vick unlikely to find him
What's the deal with professional athletes and their obsession with God and Jesus Christ?The latest, and possibly the phoniest, plea for forgiveness from the one who sits on high is Michael Vick, after the disgraceful Atlanta Falcons quarterback pleaded guilty to dogfighting charges."Through this situation I have found Jesus," Vick said, according...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Bulletproof Backpacks? A Sad Commentary of our Times

Shaun Manley — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:24:24 EDT

A new invention by a couple of dads in Boston should have this country up in arms, so to speak, about the Second Amendment. According to a local news report, these fathers have invented a bulletproof backpack.Now, it's come to this for going to school in America. What are next, bulletproof uniforms and teachers armed and trained to shoot to kill?The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a touchy subject for people who like to carry guns, and say those who want to take them away are being "un-American."This country owes it to the children to take a hard look at the Second Amendment, and see it for what it's worth. To put it plainly, let's go right to the source: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."But those who sympathize with the National Rifle Association are probably screaming, "From my cold, dead hands," by now. The NRA also stands firm that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."A gun is a weapon used for the purpose of killing -- whether it's an innocent animal (sorry, hunters, you don't kill, you thin their numbers), or it's someone breaking into your home and you grab the gun from the nightstand -- nothing more, nothing less.To quote the legendary British comedian Eddie Izzard, "The NRA says 'guns don't kill people, people do.' But I think that the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I think that if you just walked around going 'Bang!' you wouldn't kill too many people would you? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart for that to work."But, back on point here, it's sad to think that these fathers want their children to be mindful of the dangers of what could happen at any moment of any day instead of focused on why their in school to begin with -- to learn.The backpacks will sell for $175, and the bulletproof material in them will stop a number of bullets, including 9-millimeter hollow points, according to the news story. One of the inventors, Joe Curran, said the backpacks are a defensive move, and are not playing up the paranoia that schools are unsafe, according to the news station.He said he and Mike Pelonzi thought of the idea as they watched the events of Columbine High School unfold on television. The Columbine massacre took place April 20, 1999, when two teenagers killed 12 students and one teacher before killing themselves, in Jefferson County, Colorado, near Littleton and Denver. The perpetrators, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used the following weapons during the assault: an Intratec TEC-DC9, a Hi-Point 995 Carbine, a Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, and a number of homemade bombs.On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, became the scene of the deadliest school shooting in modern U.S. history. The massacre topped the Columbine shooting, as Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and injured 25 more in two separate shootings before killing himself. Curran said to NewsCenter 5 out of Boston, "I want to keep my kid safe. I don't care what you do -- if you want to fight the good fight or fix the world's hurts, I can't help you, but my kids are going to be safe because of these backpacks."The backpacks are a sad commentary on the way this society treats guns on the streets. Want to really keep the children in this country safe?Let's get stricter gun laws on the books, and start another conversation about what exactly the Second Amendment means when guns in schools have children carrying bulletproof backpacks.That conversation can do more for them than bulletproof book carriers ever could. It could save their lives before the next bullets take flight.

S. Manley is a 26 year old blogger from Michigan. He has been blogging for more than two years on various Web sites, as well as a reporter for various newspapers in Michigan.

Truth Comes out in Silence

Shaun Manley — Thu, 2 Aug 2007 00:05:01 EDT

No matter how much the White House wants to keep secrets around the firings of at least eight U.S. attorneys, their silence is telling us the real story.In the latest round of trying to keep a lid on what led to the firings, the White House has invoked executive privilege for President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and his deputy, Scott Jennings. Rove and Jennings were to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the firings Thursday."It is regretted that the committee has forced this action, as the president's offer of accommodation to you and to the House Judiciary Committee could have provided information being sought in a manner respectful of presidential prerogatives and consistent with a spirit of comity," wrote White House Counsel Fred Fielding.Fielding said that Rove, as an adviser to the president, couldn't be forced to tell what he knows, and when he knew it.The White House said it would make its top advisers available as long as they were not placed under oath (so they could lie) and if there was no transcript taken (so there would be no record of what was said).Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, smells something fishy with the whole situation. Senator, you are not alone, my friend.Leahy said that Rove had no problems with shooting his mouth off about the firings before (when it turns out he was completely, utterly, fantastically wrong), but now is going to take a vow of silence. Jennings is going to testify, but will zip his lips if he feels the answers to questions are covered by executive privilege, his attorney, Mark Paoletta, told CNN. U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has also taken a vow of silence (or developed a faulty memory) when it comes to the firings. He testified that he does not remember the details of the firings that took place Dec. 7, 2006.So, in a nutshell, that means we the people won't get the answers. It also means the separation of powers has become a thing of history.The White House has also invoked executive privilege to block former White House political director Sara Taylor and former White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying, as well as to block White House chief of staff Josh Bolten from turning over documents subpoenaed in the investigation.With all this silence, it's not hard to see what actually happened. Allow me, your fearless commentator, to fill in the blanks: Eight judges were fired, because they were not "loyal Bushies," people who did not share the president's views of the world and how it works. Karl Rove put it in the president's head that they need to go, and the president, being a loyal puppy, whispers to Gonzales that the judges need to go. Gonzales, not wanting to be out of his job as the United States' attorney, fired them. And then, well, they all developed foggy memories.It is the sound of silence, folks, and it's telling us the real story of what happened.

S. Manley is a 26 year old blogger from Michigan. He has been blogging for more than two years on various Web sites, as well as a reporter for various newspapers in Michigan.

Civil Liberties at Stake as Bush Calls to Change FISA

Shaun Manley — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:24:02 EDT

There's nothing better than a good spy story these days. We get them from movies (the upcoming The Bourne Ultimatum should be the most explosive of the adaptations of the Robert Ludlum espionage series), from books, and not wanting to be left out of the fun, President George W. Bush. The president jumped in head first by wiretapping Americans' phone lines without court approval. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the administration tapped my phone lines and read e-mails with some of the things I've written over the years.In his weekly radio address, Bush called for a change to FISA -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 -- that provides legal basis for the U.S. intelligence community to poke their noses in suspected terrorists' business without violating Americans' civil liberties.He said, in essence, that if the law is not updated, America will be caught with its pants down and another 9/11 will happen. He said al Qaeda is using its growing strength in the Middle East to throw another stone at our glass house."Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country," Bush said, according to CNN.com. "Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country."The law set up a secret court that met to review applications from the F.B.I, the National Security Agency, and other intelligence-collecting agencies to wiretap and search the homes of terrorist or espionage suspects in America.Here's the problem with FISA - it's already a breach of our civil liberties. Need we forget that Bush has already had to answer questions about his use of warrantless wiretaps? The administration's answer to breaking the law was that it needed to act more quickly to prevent 9/11: Part Deux. It also said the president had the power to wiretap anyone without court oversight in the Constitution.In a strange turn of events, the administration also said they have cultivated the first flying pig.In recent testimony on Capitol Hill, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said the tweak to FISA is to adjust it to the revolutionized way we communicate today. By following the law as is, he said, the U.S. is missing a chunk of what's going on in the private lives of its citizens - oh, sorry, I meant a huge chunk of what's being plotted against the United States.So, to change the law means the government can become more voyeuristic. Heck, they already wanted to change what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults by changing the Constitution to say marriage is only between a man and a woman.But, cooler heads are prevailing, as Democrats are saying they don't want to move too quickly to change the law because civil liberties are on the chopping block. Also, Democrats don't want to give Bush the ultimate power to spy on people."To date, our review has uncovered numerous inefficiencies in the current FISA system," Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said earlier this week. "It is not yet clear whether changes to the statute are necessary, but if they are required and justified, we will address them." The change to FISA would mean that Big Brother (no, not the incredibly stupid television show) would get even bigger. There really is nothing better than a good spy story, until that story invades our privacy.

S. Manley is a 26 year old blogger from Michigan. He has been blogging for more than two years on various Web sites, as well as a reporter for various newspapers in Michigan.

Same Old Song and Dance

Shaun Manley — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:42:48 EDT

Is there a broken recording of President Bush's speeches that he gives about Iraq?Speaking to American armed services members in South Carolina, the president said that the unpopular Iraq war is still winnable, and that we're fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here."Al Qaeda is in Iraq and they're there for a reason," Bush said. "Surrendering the future of Iraq for al Qaeda would be a disaster to our country."I'm sorry, but does anyone out there take what this man has to say seriously anymore? It's like watching a Risk player lose everything but one guy and say he's still going to win. Or the player with $1 left in Monopoly say they are going to make a comeback to win against an opponent with all the property.And now Bush is saying al Qaeda's leader in Iraq has issued an audio statement saying he's not going to rest until he attacks Washington D.C.My, my, my, this is starting to sound like the movie "V for Vendetta," where a masked man "terrorizes" Britain out of their comatose state to see they are being ruled by a dictator. The man, known only as "V," has set the fifth of November as the day of his reckoning.The finale of the film is Parliament being leveled by explosives as thousands of Brits watch with music playing in the background."Some say that Iraq is not a part of the broader war on terror," Bush said. "They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon -- that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and it's not interested in attacking America. That would be news to Osama bin Laden."How does Bush know this? Where's the evidence that led him to such a conclusion? I've seen enough episodes of "C.S.I." to know there's something missing here.And that something is the link between Iraq and al Qaeda. I just watched the video posted of Bush tying together Iraq and al Qaida, and, um, it's a knot that's not very tight.But this war on terror, none of it, has been a tightly tied knot, and it never will be. Why? Because you can't win a war that's fought on an idea. We kill Osama bin Laden, and 50 people are right there to take his place. We kill them, and another 100 are there to step up.It's a violent circle. And, unless we rid the world of all extremists, we're fighting a losing battle. I don't think we should be eliminating anyone from them world, most of all those who have differing views on the way the world works.Hey, if someone wants to kill me, there's nothing I can do to prevent that, except stay clear of them. But, I'm not going to live my life in fear that one day it's all going to be over, because I'm human, and my time's going to come anyway.If it's tomorrow, or 60 years from now, death's going to get me eventually, so why live in fear of it?That's exactly what this administration has built this war on terror thought. Our fear. They milked us for all we were worth after 9/11, and now they have to continue scaring us about another Sept. 11 attack being just around the corner.But here's something they aren't telling us: It's all smoke and mirrors. And eventually, we're going to see through the fog, and adjust our eyes to see the real issue that faces this nation: That George W. Bush, and everyone in the White House administration, are the real fear-mongers who will say anything and everything to convince us we should be scared of the threats that lurk around the world.

S. Manley is a 26 year old blogger from Michigan. He has been blogging for more than two years on various Web sites, as well as a reporter for various newspapers in Michigan.