New York Times reporter makes lame attempt to explain why reporters never cite Noam Chomsky

“Shocked” is the most appropriate word to describe my initial reaction when, scouring the New York Times today, a headline caught my eye that began, “Noam Chomsky’s Video Plea to…”

Like all forms of mainstream media, the Times doesn’t pay Chomsky much mind, despite the fact he is one of the most cited authors today, and was the most cited living person for a twelve year stretch, particularly in the realm of United States foreign policy in addition to linguistics. That’s because Chomsky’s body of work in the former field constitutes a voluminous and unyielding assault on the conventional way of thinking about American power and international relations.

In accordance with the propaganda model put forth by him and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky’s opinion is almost never solicited by any “reputable” news organization, including the New York Times. So for that split second when I saw that reporter Robert Mackey’s blog, The Lede, on the Times website was citing Chomsky, I was stunned. But then I read on:

“Noam Chomsky’s Video Plea to Iran on Behalf of Detained Americans.”

Given that Chomsky is calling on a so-called enemy of America to release Americans, it becomes simpler to understand Chomsky’s rare inclusion here. But if this were a plea from him asking the Israelis to free any of the of the numerous but ultimately unknown number Palestinians they’ve kidnapped and are detaining, including a member of parliament, or a plea to the American government to close Gitmo or to put pressure on Kuwait to release US citizen Gulet Mohamed, you can be pretty sure Noam Chomsky would not have found his way into the New York Times today.

But the most interesting aspect of Mackey’s posting can actually be found in the comments section, where, funnily enough, Chomsky’s (non)exposure in the Times was pointed out by one commenter, Josh in New York, who accurately and respectfully observed,

“It is very rare and unusual for the New York Times to cover the human-rights activism of Professor Chomsky. His books analyzing U.S. foreign policy, for example, are routinely ignored by your publication even when they make the top 20 list and even though Professor Chomsky is, according a NY Times reviewer, ‘arguably the most important intellectual alive’ and among the top 10 most cited of all living authors.

“It seems as long as Chomsky by pleading for release of the American hikers is making the Iranian government look bad the NY Times has no difficulty covering him. So it seems the present coverage in not inconsistent with decades’ long NY Times policy.”

Then came this telling inquiry from Owen in Washington D.C.:

“Robert [Mackey] - I have submitted two comments, neither of which was posted on this page. They were both on-topic and not abusive. Are there other criteria that they did not satisfy? If you let me know I will conform....”

Mackey responded with a comment of his own,

“There are several other reasons that comments are not posted here, since we make an effort to lightly moderate the discussion, but in this case I chose to call a halt to the off-topic discussion of whether or not The Times coverage of Mr. Chomsky’s work and activism is extensive enough.

“The reason is that this forum is not the place for a general discussion of The Times and most of my attempts to challenge the more outlandish and extreme statements people make here on that subject fail to convince readers whose minds are made up[,] that reporting is a considerably more complex and nuanced job than they realize.”

(I inserted that comma because without it, Mackey’s words have are somewhat confusing. So in that sense, yes, reporting can very nuanced.)

Apparently, asserting that Chomsky is not sufficiently covered by the Times is, ipso facto, evidence that one does not understand the complexities of reporting, whatever that means.

Chomsky’s general exclusion from the pages of the paper has nothing to do with the complexities and nuances of reporting, and everything to do with sourcing. Everyday, the Times runs stories that feature expert sources that are essentially interchangeable with other experts in the same field. In other words, there are innumerable experts whose opinions could be solicited on a given topic. If a reporter needs an expert analysis on the role credit default swaps played in the financial crisis, there are thousands of financial analysts he could call. If the story is about greenhouse gas emissions, there is a plethora of reputable atmospheric scientists who’d be happy to render their opinions. And if the story is about say, the American role in the Middle East “peace process” involving Israel and Palestine, there are plenty of independent experts—ones that are not government officials from any of the above nations—a reporter could call or email. (I have interviewed Chomsky and I assure the media that he responds to emails very promptly and thoughtfully). But on a consistent basis, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media forgo consulting Chomsky who has written many books on the subject, has debated other intellectuals (such as Alan Dershowitz) about it, and is invited to speak around the world.

Notice how Mackey doesn’t elaborate on his odd insinuation that Chomsky is largely absent from the times because of how reporting works. He is saying either (a) Reporters don’t ask for Chomsky’s expertise because reporting is complex—meaning reporting is hard, (which doesn’t make sense), or (b) Reporters don’t ask for Chomsky’s expertise because reporting is complex—meaning there exist editors and advertisers who don’t want the input of a such a subversive voice.

I’m going to go with (b) as the most plausible explanation, which is expounded upon in Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky is absent from television as well, and as to that reason, I will leave you with an invaluable explanation from the man himself.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

Sarah Palin's justifiably unjustified egomania

In nearly two years of posting and over 200 posts, I have written two pieces in which Sarah Palin was the primary focus. And one of those was a rather terse mocking of her reality show. Beyond these, I haven’t given Palin much thought because I assumed she would gradually fade from the spotlight. After all, resigning midway through one’s term as governor of one of the least populous states is hardly the move of a person who wishes to be considered a serious figure in American politics.

Alas, my optimism has been misplaced. Nearly two and half years after she was desperately thrust onto the national scene in a Hail Mary tossed by the tired arm of political journeyman John McCain, Palin somehow remains aloft. Much of this is her own doing, of course. She has written two books, has her own television show, is a Fox News contributor, and gives innumerable speeches to anyone willing to cough up a $100,000 speaking fee plus airfare. For that price, Palin will lecture an audience for 45 minutes about the honest and industrious nature of Real Americans, the virtues of American Exceptionalism, and the necessity of lowering corporate tax rates. She will manage to talk about these subjects and more, while managing to say hardly anything at all.

Then there is the media—both liberal and conservative—which tells us on a regular basis just how important Sarah Palin truly is. Fox News cannot get enough of their darling political dynamo, and neither can MSNBC and the Huffington Post for different reasons altogether. Truth be told, the latter outlets and their ilk have done more to keep Palin in the limelight than anyone else. Her critics are so numerous that an entire industry has been built around her ridiculousness, which provides an ample supply of malapropisms and other buffooneries to fuel its forever-burning furnaces. The thing about Palin-bashing is that it is so easy even a politically aloof person with barely a shred of common sense can partake. If I had the stomach for it, I could update this site daily using only Palin’s Facebook page and Twitter feeds as my inspiration. But there wouldn’t be much fun in that.

The same can be said for her speeches, though I imagine she bears little if any personal responsibility for their content, however superficial it may be. A case in point: this recent video is both a defense of her vague use of gun-related rhetoric and symbols, and an attack on those who suggest a relationship between that and the recent mass shooting in Arizona. Ever the victim of the “lamestream media” which she loathes but nonetheless profits handsomely by, Palin accused her accusers of engaging in a “blood libel” against her. Few contexts would provide a more inappropriate and might I add, bizarre venue for this term, which refers to the belief held by some medieval Christians that Jews murder gentiles in order to use the blood of their victims in ritual sacrifice.

Palin has encountered some harsh criticism for her use of the term, and she ought to have. But personally I doubt she even knew what the term meant, and it was probably written into her speech by someone who is paid to write her speeches. We may even see Palin eventually admit that she was not actually the one to author that line so as to deflect some of the blame.

Of course, people should not be as surprised by her “blood libel” remark as they actually are. Since bursting onto the scene Palin has been a wellspring of imaginative metaphor and dramatic rhetoric. For her, such an oratorical approach is necessary to obscure the obvious reality that there is very little substantive thought going on in her mind. This works to her advantage since, were it not for gems like, “blood libel,” “mama grizzlies,” “death panels,” “refudiate,” etc., there would hardly be any reason to pay her much attention. But every colorful new term she utters has the surely anticipated effect of keeping her in the spotlight for another week more. And if the publicity takes the form of a castigation from Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, that’s just as well, because the Real Americans Palin appeases figure that if the liberals be against her, how could god-fearing people like themselves not be with her?

The natural consequence of all this is a Palin-Mainstream Media dynamic that is continuously reinforcing itself. Palin provides the gaffes. The media reports them, with the liberals doing so derisively. And in turn Palin wears these lashings like a badge of honor to show her fans how they persecute her so. It is not entirely clear whether Palin actually suffers from the sort of persecution complex suggested by her rhetoric or not. Either way, she has become very adept at portraying herself as the target of an unceasing medley of malicious mockery. She is partly right. The liberals in the media do mock her, but the mere act of doing this—especially on a such a constant basis—is an implicit declaration that she actually matters. There is one problem with this, however.

She doesn’t.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

The problem with media mudfights

Has anyone noticed how much time and effort cable news pundits and bloggers put into ridiculing, fact-checking, and demonizing the pundits and bloggers on the other side of the political spectrum? Rather than act as watchdogs of the power elite, Fox News and MSNBC personalities, for example, often seem more interested in engaging in the following kind of shtick: “You won’t believe what [FILL IN TALK-SHOW PERSONALITY’S NAME HERE] said today!” And off they go with a ten minute segment about how crazy that person is. I don’t think I need to provide any examples because this is a well-known phenomenon. If you’ve watched Glenn Beck, The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, Hardball, The Ed Show, Countdown, Rachel Maddow, or the Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, you know exactly what I’m talking about. This is not to say that some of these shows don’t present new and insightful information and perspectives on the important issues in politics, but Left/Right mudslinging matches have become a significant part of all these media programs.

In 1987 Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman put forth their “propaganda model” to paint a picture of how the American media operates in their classic book, Manufacturing Consent. In it, they argued that although the US technically has a free press that is not officially constrained by the government, it is nonetheless self-censoring and serves to protect and reinforce the status quo. Their propaganda model has five key features, or “filters” as they call them, through which information must pass before being published or put on the airwaves, lest news that is damaging to the Establishment be consumed by the masses. Anyone interested in a full explication of the model can read about it here, but in this post I would like to concentrate on their fourth filter, which is “flak.”

Chomsky and Herman note,

“Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and bills before Congress, and other modes of complaint, threat, and punitive action. It may be organized centrally or locally, or it may consist of the entirely independent actions of individuals.

The authors here are discussing flak that it is heaped upon the media by non-media types, such as the government, media watchdogs such as the Media Institute, Center for Media and Public Affairs, and Accuracy in Media, and other groups or individuals who write or telephone their complaints. When Chomsky and Herman were writing, the media news landscape was quite different, with no internet, no Fox News, and no MSNBC. In the late 1980s, the primary sources of news were print media and the half-hour nightly network newscasts (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and one twenty-four cable news channel (CNN).

Among conservatives, there has always a feeling that these news organizations have a liberal bias (despite the fact that they are all giant corporations that rely on other giant corporations for funding through advertisements). As an endnote (pg. 28, no. 110) in Manufacturing Consent observes,

George Skelton, White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, noted that in reference to [President Ronald] Reagan’s errors of fact, “You write the stories once, twice, and you get a lot of mail saying, ‘You’re picking on the guy, you guys in the press make mistakes too.’ And editors respond to that so after a while the stories don’t run anymore. We’re intimidated.”

This sort of flak continues to this day, obviously, and I imagine there is way more of it coming these days because of the ease of email correspondence.

But since the arrival of Fox News, MSNBC, and the internet, another form of flak has taken shape, one that has seemingly surpassed the older form in importance if not volume. And that’s the media-on-media flak I alluded to in the opening. Watch one of the big opinion shows on cable news and see how long it takes the host to discuss the latest dimwitted remarks from one of their ideological adversaries. I think in the last two years, Glenn Beck has been the target of more media-originated flak than anyone. I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve it, but at some point the MSNBC crowd and the liberal blogs have to give it a rest. “Oh my god! Glenn Beck said the craziest thing today!”

No shit. That’s his job—to be an insane, ranting, schmuck who exploits conservatives’ absurd sense of victimhood by pulling back the curtain on a gallery of phantom socialist menaces: Barack Obama, Van Jones, Paul Krugman, and paradoxically, billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros. Though Beck is a nut (or at least plays one on television), he is a symptom, not a cause of 21^st century (mis)information overload. The ideological lines have been drawn for a while and very few will ever think beyond this narrow paradigm—a completely natural consequence of a media culture that has trained the rabble to think of its problems as being caused by “the other side.” Meanwhile, the elites who run the country go largely unscathed and continue to exploit and pillage the bickering serfs below.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

The "meaning" of the Arizona shooting spree

I’ve been thinking a lot about the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others yesterday which resulted in the deaths of six people, including a federal judge and the nine year old granddaughter of a former MLB manager. As I noted yesterday, looking at what evidence is available it seems to me that the alleged gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, is more deranged than anything else. I would not ascribe to his act a political motive because frankly, based on what I’ve read about him and from him, I don’t think he was mentally capable of having what you’d call a coherent political philosophy. I doubt he can be put in the same league as even the nuttiest of Teabaggers or 9/11 truthers. So if you’re reading this in the hopes of finding an excoriation of the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, or some other faction or figure, you’ll have to look elsewhere.

It appears to this observer that the most meaningful conclusion that can be drawn from this sad episode is that it is entirely meaningless. Everyone is asking why this happened. It’s a completely natural question to ask, but I’m sorry to inform them that a satisfactory answer is hardly forthcoming. To anyone seeking an explanation for this shooting spree, allow me to direct you to the alleged gunman’s YouTube channel. Peruse his videos. See if you can glean any coherence from them. You cannot. They are slideshows compiled by a very ill person, a legitimate psychotic (probably a schizophrenic) who was either off his meds or who had no meds in the first place because he went undiagnosed entirely.

That’s just my take on it, but I doubt such an explanation—even if true—will be enough to satiate our national dialogue, which I’m sure is preparing for many helpings of potentially “teachable moments” about why this happened. “Is our political rhetoric becoming too hateful? How was he able to purchase the guns legally?” and “Should we provide more security for our elected officials?” are questions likely to be debated on the cable news shows in the weeks ahead.

And for what? Pundits on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and countless blogs are all going to offer their takes on what the solution, or at least what the cause is. Some have already started. But the fact is, there is no solution and there is no cause—at least not one that fits into a convenient overarching political narrative or really any narrative, other than one that acknowledges the cruel capriciousness of existence.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

(Updates I & II) Gunman kills six, including Fed judge. Congresswoman in critical condition. AZ Sheriff condemns hateful political rhetoric.

Today Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head along with several others by a gunman at an event at a Safeway in Tucson, Arizona. Right now I’m not going speculate as to the motives of the suspect, who has been described as being in his late teens or early twenties. But it sufficeth to say that given the toxic political atmosphere that has been generated over the last two years, you almost knew something like this was bound to happen.

ps: If I had to guess, I’d say this assassination has something to do with her support for the DREAM Act.

Update I

So much for my theory of an illegal-immigration-related motive for the shooter of Gabrielle Giffords.

It turns out the suspect is a 22 year old named Jared Lee Loughner. This is his YouTube channel. His videos are just slides of text, and an he seems to be big on “conscience dreaming,” whatever that means. Perhaps he means “conscious dreaming,” aka “lucid dreaming,” but who knows. The videos don’t make much sense but there isn’t much there that would have suggested he’d shoot up a Congressperson’s meet-and-greet or hurt anyone in general.

In one of his videos he encourages people to read the Constitution in order “to apprehend all the treasonous laws.” More interesting is this passage, which suggests Loughner is a US Army recruit:

Every United States Military recruit at MEPS [Military Entrance Processing Station] in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

Jared Loughner is a United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix.

Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

I didn’t write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter on the application wrote: None.

He concludes this video with a slide that reads:

In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, [sic] I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying [sic] mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!

No I won’t trust in God!

This guy loves syllogisms, though he doesn’t seem to know how to make one properly. The plain truth is that Loughner is either mentally ill or has the intellectual capacity of an eight year old. Either way, I don’t think there is a coherent motive to be gleaned here.

By the way, here are his favorite books according to his YouTube channel:

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest [sic], Pulp, Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

I wonder if any conservatives will dare seize on the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf listings in here. We’ll see if a person like Glenn Beck is shameless enough to link Loughner’s professed godlessness with Communism and Fascism in the same fell swoop. I’m going to show a little faith in Glenn and say he doesn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole, but I wouldn’t be totally shocked if I’m wrong.

Anyway, I’m following this story closely. It will be interesting to see what else about this lunatic comes to light.

Update II

Regarding Loughner’s YouTube claim about being a US Army recruit (see above), it turns out that he did in fact try to enlist, but was rejected.

Police say that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was the primary target of the shooter, believed to be 22 year old Jared Lee Loughner, although authorities are refusing to confirm the name at this point. Also, the authorities are saying Loughner (though, he was not mentioned by name) has a criminal history.

At a press conference, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said he was “not convinced” that the shooter acted alone and that they are currently looking for a “person of interest”—a white male in his fifties—who apparently arrived with the gunman at the Tucson Safeway.

What was most interesting about the press conference wasn’t any information that Dupnik disclosed about the case, but the fact than on at least three separate occasions he editorialized about the “vitriol” in America’s political discourse right now. Of his own state of Arizona he said,

I’d just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately Arizona, I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

And also,

There’s reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol.

It seems to me that Sheriff Dupnik is under the impression that this “unbalanced” gunman was, on some level, influenced by the toxic political rhetoric that’s been going around in this country. Should it surprise anyone? In a nation of over 300 million people, we can’t be shocked when some whackjob takes seriously rhetoric about needing a revolution in America.

Speaking of vitriol and threats, one of the six dead from today’s shooting is US District Court Judge John Roll. According to the local authorities (who are working with federal agencies on this case), Roll was just “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

However, like countless other public officials, Roll has been the recipient of numerous death threats. Such was the case when in February 2009 when he ruled that a $32 million lawsuit filed by sixteen illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher who held them at gunpoint after he caught them trying to cross the US-Mexico border via his property. In July 2009 the Arizona Republic noted,

When Roll ruled the case could go forward, Gonzales said talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats.

In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online.

“They said, ‘We should kill him. He should be dead,’ “[US Marshal David] Gonzales said.

Roll, who is the chief federal judge in Arizona, said both he and his wife were given a protection detail for about a month.

In addition, several threats had already been made against Giffords, and her Tucson office was vandalized in 2010, hours after she voted in favor of health care reform.

****

I leave you with an excerpt from a most salient Associated Press story,

During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.

“I don’t see the connection,” between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday’s shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly's spokesman. “I don't know this person, we cannot find any records that he was associated with the campaign in any way. I just don’t see the connection.

"Arizona is a state where people are firearms owners—this was just a deranged individual,” Ellinwood said.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

"Sobriety checkpoints" are sinister and a threat to liberty

Totalitarianism in action

Here’s hoping you didn’t start off your New Year with a 3am detention at a totalitarian police state “sobriety checkpoint” courtesy of fascists with badges and guns. I don’t think I’ve ever experienced anything as disturbing and infuriating as driving through one of these checkpoints which I did a few years back. I had known they existed, but only when I experienced one for myself did I truly realize just how creepy they are. There I was, driving with two friends when we found ourselves in a small traffic jam on a main roadway heading out of town. The cause? Jack-booted thugs stopping anyone and everyone, jamming flashlights in the faces of unsuspecting motorists trying to determine if any of us were wasted.

“Where are you coming from?” a cop barked at us.

“A restaurant,” I said, flabbergasted.

He shined the light on each of our faces before telling us, “Go ahead.”

Up until that unsettling experience, the thought of roadway checkpoints was largely an alien concept to me. For me the word “checkpoint” conjured an image of a dirt road guarded by paramilitary types with Kalishnakovs slung over their shoulders in some faraway Third World authoritarian shithole. No more. Arbitrary roadblocks set up by men with guns are right here in the “land of the free” and they’re here to stay.

That’s because in 1990, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz. In that ruling, SCOTUS ruled that checkpoints are just fine. Who cares if motorists who have committed no crime are detained without probable cause by armed wards of the state? It’s only the Fourth Amendment at stake.

If you ever find yourself at a sobriety checkpoint, you can limit the amount of time you’re detained by fully answering all of the police’s questions. I would recommend this course of action if you’ve been drinking. Calmly answer the questions and maintain eye contact. Police are trained to interpret evasiveness as a sign of guilt. Of course, if you’re hammered and have glossy, bloodshot eyes and Wild Turkey breath you’re probably done for.

Or if you haven’t been drinking, you can stick it to the cops while staying within your rights as a citizen. Under the law, police may stop you at a roadblock whose purpose is to weed out drunk drivers and under the law you must stop for them. But you have the right to refuse to answer their questions. Remember: under no circumstances are you required to answer the questions of police officers. Of course, refusing to answer a simple question like, “Where are you coming from?” will arouse an officer’s suspicions, but if you haven’t been drinking and feel like asserting your constitutional rights, I would advise saying something like,

“Officer, while I understand that this checkpoint is lawful according to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Michigan State Police v. Sitz, I am choosing to exercise my constitutional rights and respectfully decline to answer whatever questions you have. Furthermore, I will decline to furnish my license and registration upon request, unless that request is pursuant to my being cited for a moving violation. If there is nothing else, I would like to proceed to my destination.”

After saying this, the cop will either let you proceed or ask you to pull over to the side of the road. If you haven’t been drinking, he should let you go. But if he tells you to pull over, then you’ve got a real asshole on your hands who doesn’t know the law and who doesn’t like to have his authority questioned.

The good news is, this is the point at which successful lawsuits against police departments begin! Just remain calm and polite. Let the police be the ones to get out of control. After all, a police officer’s worst enemy is a citizen who knows his rights.

The Sitz decision is one of the most outrageous rulings in recent Supreme Court history. Sobriety checkpoints are yet another instance of travelers being treated as suspects first, and citizens second. Take the Transportation Security Administration’s naked porno scanners in airports. If you want to fly out of Logan where I live, you have to get scanned or groped by a government bureaucrat. Those are the options you have if you want to get on a plane. Not because you’ve done anything wrong, but because you’re traveling and therefore have no rights. They’ve even started performing pat-downs on bus riders and using dogs to sniff travelers’ luggage for everything from bombs to drugs. And of course, in the big cities police continue to randomly search the bags of subway passengers. In the United States, if you travel by automobile, air, bus, train, or subway, you are guilty until proven innocent.

This is the country we’re living in right now. It’s only going to get worse. We are almost a decade removed from the World Trade Center attacks, and the American public is still so afraid of terrorists, that we’ll do just about anything merely to feel safe. Insert cliché Ben Franklin quote about liberty and security here.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com