Google News Changes - Personalized News Source or Big Brother Monitoring?

There's a video from Google on its Google Blog today, introducing today's revamped Google News -- and while it sounds nice (doesn't Google always sound nice?), I gotta wonder.

How much is Google monitoring what we're reading for its own devices?

Should we be selecting the stories we read, or was it better, when the editors sorted stories according to importance - what we the public might need to know?

The fact that the video uses "Tom Cruise" as an example of how to cull your news to fit your interests, does this tell us something scary about things today?

Federal Control of the Web for Purposes of Homeland Security: Threat of Terrorism or Threat of Revolution?

In today's news, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is pushing for federal control of the internet -- just as the FCC is fighting for control of internet service providers.  The Federal Communications Commission just opened comments on whether broadband should be reclassified as a telecommunications system -- and therefore, under the same regulatory control as telephones, etc.  

All, apparently in the name of a growing threat of "homegrown terrorism." 

In a recent speech to the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Secretary Napolitano pointed to foreign terrorists who use the World Wide Web to communicate with their cohorts here in the United States.  She is quoted as saying, "[t]he First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet."

Napolitano pointed to our known foreign enemies -- we are in two wars, of course -- and in this context, monitoring our enemies' ability to conspire with spies (sounds melodramatic, but nevertheless, it's accurate) seems to make sense.

Lots of Homegrown Political Groups Organizing on Meetup.com

However, something interesting occurred the same morning that I was reading about this push to federalize the Internet -- over at Meetup.com. 

You know Meetup.com.  It's the cool site where people of shared interests coordinate group meetings over the web.  Hikers, Dog Lovers, Poker Players, Business Networking Groups -- they're all there at Meetup.com.  I was looking for writer groups to join, maybe a book club. 

This morning, I was surprised to see the number of groups that have sprouted in the two months or so since I last visited San Antonio's Meetup.com that are politically charged.  Some may be Tea Party groups.  Some may be other things -- there was one here in San Antonio established to prepare for an inevitable Martial Law. 

Going by the name US Martial Law and Financial - Instant Alert System, there are 327 members as of today's date.  Think of that.  The local Scrabble club has 34. 

The Martial Law group is Libertarian, they're apparently supporters of Ron Paul, and is part of the "Constitutionalist" groups numbering 299 worldwide.  Now, these groups appear to be Tea Party connected, too, so go figure. 

Who Does the Federal Government Want to Monitor?

I'm a native of San Antonio.  During the three years I represented kids in the San Antonio CPS courts, I learned a lot about border activities.  First of all, I learned that the federal government simply isn't doing that much to protect our border with Mexico. 

Here in San Antonio, I've talked with coyotes (professional human smugglers) and Texas Rangers and Border Patrol officers.  Here, quite frankly, the consensus is that we feel pretty much on our own - and it's understood that it's not just Mexican Nationals that are entering our state.  Nope.  All sorts of nationalities are crossing into Texas these days.  If they've got the cash, then there's a coyote willing to smuggle them (at great risk, of course). 

So, what's the real concern here on internet regulation and control?  Is it really the foreign threat?  Or is it an internal one? 

This agency - or executive branch - desire to grasp the reins of the internet needs to be carefully considered by all of us.  Our civil liberties are paramount.  Men and women have died, and are dying, for mine and yours. 

I'm pondering all this today, and thought I'd share it with you.  I'm suspicious that it's my fellow citizens that are the true targets of this intentional violation of civil liberties, not foreigners. 

We're a country that revolted in the 1700s and again in the 1800s.  Some would say the 1960s came close to a third revolution.  How real is a threat of revolution today?  It's something to ponder. 

Everybody Draw Mohammad Day is Today - Here's Why You Should Support It

Seattle Cartoonist Molly Norris
 has declared May 20th as National
Everybody Draw Muhammad Day! 

Comedy Central cut a portion of South Park that was to show Mohammed in a bear costume, after cartoonists Trey Parker and Matt Stone received death threats from a radical Muslim group.  Seems that Comedy Central censored everything related to Mohammed in this recent South Park episode, in response to these threats. 

In response, cartoonist Molly Norris declared May 20, 2010, as "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," asking that people upload their own depictions of Mohammed onto her Facebook page (see the poster, there at the right).  

And now, liberal and conservative alike (think about that for a moment, because this might be a very big deal) are joining together in support of the raison d'etre behind Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

The liberal Huffington Post gives us an excellent discussion of why we should all do this in Sam Harris' piece, "Losing Our Spines to Save Our Lives."

Big Hollywood (known as "the conservative voice of Hollywood") not only supports Harris' position ("Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called “a chilling effect” on our exercise of free speech.") but also points us to Mark Goldblatt's article in the libertarian Reason magazine, "The Poet versus the Prophet,"

At what is hoped to be exemplary fair use, I join with Brad Thor of Big Hollywood to share the excellent work of Sam Harris, who writes:

The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.


There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.”


Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called “a chilling effect” on our exercise of free speech.

Of course, Molly Norris's efforts did not squeak by unnoticed.  She's been the subject of death threats.  There's been a movement to boycott Facebook by those unhappy with her efforts.  Parts of Pakistan are blocking the Facebook site.

Nevertheless, according to FoxNews' headcount yesterday, over 41,000 Facebook users associated with the event page and a second, similar page was "liked" by over 4400.  Interestingly, 58,000 users had joined a Facebook page in opposition to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. 

Mind you, Comedy Central is the same channel that is purportedly preparing to bring us an entire half-hour cartoon that according to the Hollywood Reporter will depict Jesus Christ as wanting to "escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York City." 

As a devout Christian, am I happy about this?  No.  Will I watch this show?  Nope.  "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do," applies pretty well here.   Here's the difference: no way am I going to be threatening cartoonists with harm here.  I'll pray for them, and I'll pray that the show fails.  I'll let Comedy Central know they've lost a viewer if it ever airs.  It offends me and it's blasphemous.  It's wrong for them to do. 

I'm not pleased that Jesus is being disrespected and dishonored as well as God Himself, but I trust that God knows what to do about this.  God will handle it.  God doesn't want me killing cartoonists in His Name. 

Regarding free speech, as an American, I'm reminded of Voltaire's famous words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  

I also agree with the liberals,conservatives, and liberatarians whose writings have been referenced here, and join with them: it's time Americans stop accommodating against offense at the cost of Free Speech.

Melinda Duckett Family Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Nancy Grace and CNN -- It May Be a Dog that Will Hunt

Here in Texas, and I suppose most of the South, lawyers will talk about a weak argument as being a "dog that won't hunt."  And there was a time after the 2006 filing of a wrongful death action against CNN and Nancy Grace by the family of Melinda Duckett where that was exactly what I was thinking:  it's a dog that won't hunt.  Things may have changed ....

Backstory - What's the Basis for the Lawsuit?

On September 7, 2006, Nancy Grace interviewed Melinda Duckett over the telephone as part of her continuing television coverage of the search for Melinda Duckett's missing child, 2 year old Trenton.  (A transcript of the interview, as it was aired on September 8, 2006, by CNN is still available online.)