WikiLeaks Founder Gaining Support from Some Influential Voices

Jeff Stein, who writes the Spytalk column for the Washington Post has some interesting things to say about Julian Assange, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks, who could be facing possible espionage charges for his role in publishing thousands of secret American wires. Or rather, he brings us some interesting things that others are saying about Assange.

Jack L. Goldsmith, who has been described as “one of the brightest stars of the conservative legal firmament,” and was a member of the Justice Department under George W. Bush, believes Assange is being unduly vilified. “I certainly do not support or like his disclosure of secrets that harm U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. But as all the hand-wringing over the 1917 Espionage Act shows, it is not obvious what law he has violated. It is also important to remember, to paraphrase Justice Stewart in the Pentagon Papers, that the responsibility for these disclosures lies firmly with the institution empowered to keep them secret: the Executive branch.” Goldsmith resigned from the Justice Department nine months in, disagreeing with U.S. policies on waterboarding and other interrogation techniques.

Libertarian figurehead Ron Paul is also speaking out in favor of Assange, saying that “When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead the media focuses on how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.”

Finally, Harvard political scientist asks what is really the difference between Bob Woodward and Julian Assange? Both are releasing embarrassing government secrets to the public. Personally, I think it’s a pretty valid question to be asking. Should Woodward have been put on trial for leaking the information he got from Deep Throat? Not many people would say yes. Is there truly a difference?

Party Switching Tends to Backfire

Washington Post writer Aaron Blake offers an interesting perspective on switching political parties in order to gain favor with one’s electorate (Most recently, Democrats in the South and Midwest have been jumping across the aisle).

Of the last 12 House members to switch parties only half won their next election… far less than the odds of your average incumbent, while of the last four in the Senate to make the switch, only Joe Lieberman was able to gain re-election.

While it might seem a good idea to join with the winning side, whomever that might be, history, and a little bit of  thinking, tell us that this is not the case. Blake, to illustrate his point, tells the story of former Representative Michael Forbes, who switched from Republican to Democrat in 1999.

“In the 2000 campaign — Forbes’ first as a Democrat — the National Republican Congressional Committee sent direct mail reminding Democratic primary voters of his opposition to abortion and gun control provisions. Forbes narrowly lost the primary to a little known, 71-year-old librarian who lost the seat for Democrats in the fall.”

Blake is absolutely right when he says party switches “are a very dangerous proposition. They reek of opportunism and remind many voters of everything they hate about politics.”

Happy Meal Toys: Immoral and Subverting Our Youth?

First, let me begin by saying, I saw this article because of a feature at the top of the Washington Post’s website which tracks the most popular search topics on the website and directs people to related articles. In this case, the trending topic was “McDonalds Lawsuit.” Well, that sounded intriguing, so I gave it a look. And, lo and behold, it turns out that it was.

Jennifer LaRue Huget, Post writer, informs us of a lawsuit being filed against our friends at the Golden Arches. Monet Parham, of Sacramento, claims McDonalds is making it difficult to keep her kids eating heathily.

“I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” she said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes it that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

The Washington-based Center for Science in Public Interest, a nutrition watchdog group has backed her in the class-action lawsuit.

By the end of the article, even the author can’t contain her disdain:

“Seems to me this is at least as much a parenting issue as it is a matter of deceptive marketing. I have been quite frank about the fact that my own two kids haven’t always, and don’t always, eat as healthfully as they probably should; sometimes I’m surprised and even embarrassed by their food choices. But I can’t recall a single occasion on which either child saw a McDonald’s ad and begged/nagged/bullied me into taking them to Mickey D’s. And if they had, the answer would as likely as not have been “no.” Which is not to say that we never have eaten under the Golden Arches. It’s just that we as parents decided when we would and when we wouldn’t. In our family, the kids aren’t in charge.”

The article is followed by a poll, asking readers to opine and let the Post know how they feel on the issue. As of right now 1191 people have voted, and 79% of people believe in the end it’s the parents’ responsibility to take the children or not take the children to McDonalds, all marketing aside. We’ll see if this holds up in court, but in the court of public opinion, Ms. Parham seems to be coming up short.

Crying: A Sign of Weakness or Humanity? Depends on Your Party

The New York Times Opinion section is ripe with interesting, or at least amusing, stories today. Or maybe saving all these blogs for the end of the semester is just making me a little giddy. Regardless, Gail Collins has an opinion piece up where she looks into new Speaker of the House John Boehner and his tendency to burst into tears at the slightest provocation- something his supporters relish as a sign of his good human nature.

Collins takes a few moments to pause during her editorial to wonder about what would happen in Nancy Pelosi cried during her addresses… pundits would immediately jump all over her because A) She a woman, and thus assumed to be weak and B) a Democrat, and thus assumed to be weak, and her crying would just be confirming these things. In fact, the very thing happened to Hillary Clinton during her primary campaign a few years ago. She sniffled and had wet eyes during a speech in New Hampshite, and the headline in the papers the next was “Clinton Cries” and everyone began to talk about how she was strong enough to lead the nation through these difficult economic times.

Boehner, on the other hand, has admitted he can’t even visit schools or playgrounds, because he bursts into tears at the sight. Why, you ask? Because “making sure these kids have a shot at the American dream, like I did, is important.” Well, if I wasn’t feeling a little sick already from finals week, imagining a grown man, and one of the more important politicians in the country for the next two years, sob out this quote would probably get the job done.

Interesting Opinion Piece on the Hardships of Freelancers

Elizabeth Dwoskin, New York Times editorial writer, had an interesting piece online today. In it, she discusses the difficulties two freelance workers, one a construction worker from Ecuador, and another a computer consultant from right here in the USA, in actually receiving their paychecks from employers. In Saldana, the foreman’s, case, his boss simply refused to pay him, or promised that the money would come later. Saldana couldn’t afford to pay his bills, and he took his former boss to court. However, he couldn’t afford to pay a lawyer and ended up only receiving $10,000 of the $32,000 he was owed.

Jason Windham, the computer consultant, is owed over $20,000 from an employer who has been claiming his checks are being lost in the mail for months. Unlike Saldana, he has lived in America all his life, and knows his rights. However, it doesn’t do him any good, as nothing has helped, and he is now deeply in debt.

The author then describes her own situation. 28-years-old, struggling to pay off student loans and rent on a beginning writer’s salary, freelancing on the side, but rarely getting paid when promised, sometimes months late. It seems very possible that I, or any journalism student, could end up in this situation fairly easily. The student loans I’ll have acquired after graduating UMass will be fairly significant… I can’t even imagine what an education at Boston University or Columbia could do to a student’s bank accounts.

In Case of Nuclear Attack… Huddle in Your Car?

The Obama administration has a problem, according to a New York Times article by William J. Broad. It turns out, if you stay put after a potential nuclear attack, in a basement or even a car, your chances of survival jump by over 50%, according to a new series of studies. However, the Obama administration is hesitant to begin a campaign to educate the public of this, at the fear of sounding paranoid and alarmist.

Which is probably what the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world would say, sure. However, speaking for myself and probably many others, I think that, even if there is an infinitesimally small chance of a nuclear strike occurring on American soil, the public should probably be as well prepared as possible. I would rather think my government was over preparing the population that under preparing it. As the article mentions, the natural tendency of people is to run away from danger, which, in this case, would all but ensure your death from radiation poisoning. Having the knowledge not to run could save millions of lives, even if the chances of something like this happening are almost zero. Hey, Jack Bauer of 24, as much of a hero as he is, still had two separate nuclear bombs go off on American soil during the 8 seasons the show was on the air.

“It’s more survivable than people think” was a quote from a anonymous official close the project. I’d want to remain anonymous too, if I were saying things like that.

However, maybe, as the article suggests, that’s just the remnants of a Cold War mindset, that “unrealistic sense of fatalism” about nuclear attacks. Regardless, as the great sage George W. Bush put it in 2002, “History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act”

Bob Feller Obituaries

At 9:15, tonight, baseball Hall of Famer Bob Feller, one of the greatest pitchers who ever lived, died in a Cleveland area hospital from acute leukemia. Within just over an hour of his death, both the New York Times and the Washington Post posted obituaries. Although it was only posted four minutes before the Post’s, the Times’ article is much shorter and not as detailed, and certainly isn’t as well constructed. “The Cleveland Indians say Hall of Fame Bob Feller has died. He was 92.” is a terrible lead, especially compared to the Washington Post’s: “Bob Feller, the Iowa farm boy whose powerful right arm earned him the nickname “Rapid Robert” and made him one of baseball’s greatest pitchers during a Hall of Fame career with the Cleveland Indians, has died. He was 92.”

While time is certainly of the essence in breaking a story such as this, the Times could have done better. I’m sure they will publish a longer obituary later, as likely will the Post, but the article in the Post, written by AP writer Tom Withers, was much more well done and , as I said, posted only four minutes after the Times article. Not to mention, the Post article is right on the front page of their website, opposite the headline (the House passing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), while the Times is the third or fourth story down on their sports page.

Opposition to Healthcare Reform Analyzed

In an excellent article, New York Times writer Dave Leonhardt breaks down and analyzes the opposition to the Obama Administration’s Universal Healthcare Reform, comparing it to past laws such as Social Security and Medicare that were met with staunch opposition at the time, but are generally considered to be positive today. He begins by bringing up the progressive and laissez-faire traditions that evolved out of post-Civil War America. Progressivism is the movement, supported by Theodore Roosevelt and others, that created such things as minimum wage laws and workers’ rights. Laissez-faire, supported by Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, is the idea that the market should be left to regulate itself.

The Laissez-faire attitude, throughout history, has created more problems than it has solved, including the Great Depression and the current financial crisis. However, at its roots are some of America’s most fundamental beliefs, and people have trouble giving it up. The idea of individual freedom to take risks, or not, in the marketplace being one of the chief among them. If I want to take the risk of not having health insurance, why shouldn’t I? Then when I get sick, I can get health insurance then, and I won’t be wasting my money in the meantime. The problem is, those free-riders then raise costs for all those who choose to buy health insurance from the get-go.

Progressive reforms have always been met with heavy resistance. In his article, Leonhardt quotes an executive opposed to the minimum wage law in 1938, who described the law as taking steps in the direction of “Communism, Bolshevism, facism, and Nazism.” Opponents of the Civil Rights Act and the desegregation of public schools described those acts as sowing chaos and confusion and “asking for trouble.”

In the end, only time will show who is right. But Leonhardt ends his article with words that resonate well with me. “I think it is ultimately as misplaced as those worries about Social Security and Medicare equaling Bolshevism… With every previous major expansion of the safety net, history has had a chance to prove the naysayers wrong. It may yet in the case of universal health coverage. But the decision now seems to rest with the nine members of the Supreme Court.”

Privatization of Space?

In a recent New York Times article by Kenneth Chang, which can be found here, Chang discusses the recent private spacecraft that just returned safely from orbit; the first of it’s kind. The rocket, called the Falcon 9, which was designed and sponsored by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX, is intended to replace the NASA Ares rockets, whose program is in the process of being cancelled, in bringing supplies and eventually astronauts up to the International Space Station. The launch, orbit, and return went off without a hitch, and could be the beginning of a new era of space travel and exploration.

SpaceX has a contract worth $1.6 billion for 12 flights to the International Space Station, and the success of this initial launch apparently validates President Obama’s desire to increase the role of private corporations in the space program. The next demonstration, which will take the shuttle close to the station is scheduled for next Spring, followed by a third and final demonstration in which the shuttle will dock with the station. However, after the astounding success of the first launch, the next two might be combined into one.

It’s odd to think about the space program, which has been solely NASA since its inception, should now be open to the free market. The more minds that are working on a project, the better that project will turn out, so hopefully the addition of private scientists will help propel the space program to new levels (no pun intended). If this launch is any indication, the private sector can do NASA’s job better than NASA can, so why not give them a shot? It will certainly take time for corporations to build up the necessary technology and facilities for their own launches (currently, SpaceX is launching from Cape Canaveral), but this could very well be the beginning of a drastic re-imagining of what our space program is.

Live Chats with Writers

I’ve seen a feature evolving on mlbtraderumors.com, one of my favorite sites, where one of the staff writers, sometimes site founder and analyst on XM Radio Tim Dierkes, or, in this case, writer Ben Nicholson-Smith, will have an hour long live chat with members, where they will answer questions on baseball trade rumors, free agents, etc. It gives an opportunity to anyone, be they an official member of the site or not, a chance to get their questions answered by professional writers, and experts in their field.

I haven’t really seen this feature develop in any of the more significant journalistic sources, such as the Times or the Post. Sure, the general public has the ability to comment on articles, which may or may not be responded to by the writer, but its more of a collection of opinions, rather than an open dialogue. The open chat is much like a fully digitized press conference, in that the subject, in this case Nicholson-Smith, can choose which questions to answer, and gives his opinions on the ones he deems appropriate. In the interest of time, most of his answers are concise, and sometimes snippy if its warranted, but the concept is the same.

This could be an interesting way for not only journalists, but politicians and other public figures, to talk directly with their audiences. Especially for this second group, the ability to talk to people without the press acting as an intermediary is an interesting concept, although, as a future journalist, I’m not sure how I feel about it.

 

EDIT: This is also a referring feature on the Chicago Tribune website