What do you do after you’ve helped the Republican Party lose an election? You become a blogger.

No, I’m not talking about Sarah Palin. I’m talking about Joe The Plumber. Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan, it’s a new discovery! Joe can blog.

My guess is the Republican Party is sponsoring Joe The Plumber’s new enterprise. Does this mean he’s going to quit turning pipes? With any luck he’ll quit turning up at GOP fundraisers and campaign stops and give up on public speaking. My thought on this is it’s just another Republican hype job meant to sell voters on the idea that the GOP is the only party that cares about freedom; only it’s not true. There are a number of issues the Republican Party doesn’t care about freedom on and if Joe The Plumber is really concerned about America’s freedoms, he’ll quit the Republican Party and join the Libertarians.

Project Censored lists 25 stories that were not reported widely in the media in 2008. At the top of the list was a bill that George W. Bush signed into law that effectively overturns the Posse Comitatus Act. It’s called the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007.

Nevermind that the news is from 2006, not 2007 (it was signed in October 2006). This is an important law. It actually allows the president to station military troops anywhere within the U.S. and take charge of state National Guard troops for the purpose of suppressing “public disorder.” In other words, we’re overturning U.S. law, the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all of which have historically shown respect to the right of the people to peacefully assemble. President Bush doesn’t think we should have that right.

Don’t believe Project Censored or trust it as a source? Don’t believe or trust me? That’s fine. Read the actual text of the law (it’s House name is H.R. 5122):

(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to–

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that–

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that–

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

It’s Section 333.

The problem with this as it is worded is that the president himself is the authority on what determines an insurrection of loss of public order. There are no checks and balances included in the provision. The president must notify Congress of his decision to use the military for such purposes and keep them informed “every 14 days”, but there is no oversight or check on his authority to do so. In other words, on a whim, any president, present or future, can declare martial law for any reason he so deems and deploy the military, including any state National Guard - even across state lines into other states if he so wishes - to suppress the right of the people to be angry at their government for trampling upon their rights.

Here’s what I envision the practical application to be:

A future election has a very close end. It all boils down to one state and the results are so close that the winner is by a few hundred votes. Sound familiar? After two recounts it has been twice determined that the Republicans won and twice determined that the Democrats have won, depending on how the count was conducted. Then things begin to get nasty. An angry mob of Democrats begins to gather outside the Republican headquarters in the most disputed county in protest; likewise, a group of angry Republicans begin forming outside of Democratic headquarters. The president, a Democrat, decides to take action. No one has gotten violent - yet; but we’re bound and determined to prevent violence before it happens. The state National Guard - let’s say it’s Ohio - is deployed under federal orders to start arresting people in front of the Democratic headquarters (but these are all Republicans). It’s defined as an insurrection and because of H.R. 5122, the president has the authority to do this.

Sound crazy? It is. And where has the media been in all of this? Nowhere. No one has reported on it. I didn’t hear about it. Did you? Where’s the protest?

Ad revenues are down for big media companies. Who’d have guessed? Gas prices are up so where are people going to cut expenses? On the expenses that aren’t 100% necessary and for many small businesses, advertising is one of those things that eats into the budget, especially if small business owners can’t easily spot or measure the ROI of the expense. But big companies have budgets too. And when hard times hit they’ll cut their expenses just like the small fries will. So this is where we’re at right now. Big oil had its hey-day and now the rest of us are eating dirt. Thanks Exxon Mobil. The news industry loves you.

The second story this week has more to do with legislation. The Senate has decided not to vote on the media shield law. It’s technical name is the Free Flow of Information Act. All but five Republicans want to vote on energy legislation before tackling the free flow of information law that keeps the public informed of important goings on in Washington. Well, they may not have their priorities right, but at least they have priorities, much like the Big Oil companies. The media thanks you.

Close to half of Americans believe the Internet should be regulated. About the same number say they use the Internet every day or almost every day. These are interesting stats.

Presumably, the survey that produced these stats came about due to the harassment case involving a woman who pretended to a boy interested in a high school girl who killed herself when the fictitious “boy” later lost interest. This is a tragic story indeed. But harassment laws are already on the book. Of course they should apply to the Internet just as they apply to the local drug store, your church group, or the YMCA.

What these Americans are saying when they claim that they want a regulated Internet is that they would like the FCC or a similar agency to monitor Internet communications to keep out anything that they might find offensive. But there are huge, HUGE problems with that. No. 1, much of what is produced on the Internet comes from other countries. No federal agency has the authority to police what is produced in other countries. No. 2, if such an agency did exist then it is inevitable that it would eventually gain the authority to block sites not produced in the U.S. on the grounds of some type of non-objective criteria judging what is and is not offensive. Giving any government agency the authority to block any website online is not the answer and is not desirable. It would curtail the freedom that has made the Internet a fast-growing success in American culture.

We don’t need Internet regulation. It regulates itself. The search engines do an adequate job of filtering out spam and do a reasonably good job of ensuring that communications online are segmented into information categories recognized by keyword search queries. It’s not a perfect system, but is a system that has developed naturally over the course of the Internet’s lifeline. Americans need to first understand the nature of the medium before they start asking for bureaucrats who likely will understand it even less to monitor and regulate the best tool since Gutenberg’s press.

Democracies struggle to come into their own in the middle east as we know all too well. It is good to see that citizens and journalists are being allowed to protest in Pakistan over freedom of the press.

Journalists condemn curbs on media

They gathered in front of the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Press Club on the call of the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Union of Journalists (RIUJ). The journalists shouted anti-government slogans and criticised media gags. Students and members of civil society also joined the protest to express solidarity with journalists.

The protestors held placards inscribed with slogans ‘free press’, ‘stop violation against journalists’, ‘freedom of expression is people’s right’. They said the government could not prevent them from performing their professional duties and that they were committed to factual reporting, through which the government was held accountable to the public. The journalists said the government’s claims of freedom of press were false since it had targeted journalists because they were exposing its misdeeds and anti-public policies. Free media, they said, was an important pillar of the state.

Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) General Secretary Mazhar Abbass said journalists were a peaceful community and they were only performing their duties.

Civil disobedience is the path to freedom and democracy. It has been for the US and it is now in countries like Pakistan. The news media and citizens of countries in the middle east are the ones that have to stand up and fight for their freedoms and for democracy if they want it.

George Bush believes he can force these countries to become democratic. It is an uninformed and uneducated opinion some others in the republican party share. This country got it’s freedom and became a democracy because citizens stood up to tyranny. Because they wanted freedom and democracy.

They risked their lives for it. They knew that english soldiers would kill dissenters for speaking out against the crown, but they did it anyway. Many lost their lives doing so. Many soldiers have died defending our freedom since then.

In Iraq, the people did not stand up against saddam hussein, against tyranny. A few obviously did and died but their was no mass rebellion to say the least. So bush took it upon himself to stand up for them even without being asked to do so. He told us they would welcome us with open arms. They did, but they also had bombs strapped to their waists.

You cannot tell people they should be free. You cannot force people to be free or to stand up for their rights. They have to want it so bad they are willing to risk their lives for it just as our forefathers did.

If the people of a country cannot stand up and fight for their own freedoms and to have a democracy, then they will never be able to keep it, defend it, or maintain it. You cannot give people freedom. They have to earn it.

Blogging is still thought of as writing a personal diary and not something to waste time on by many people. There are still offline journalists and reporters who believe blogging is just a trend that will pass.

Dan Rather might beg to differ and many news organizations have either tried to adopt blogging or at least now know they have to take blogging seriously.

Bloggers were laughed at when they called what we do “journalism” or “news” and mainstream media only recently acknowledged bloggers as commentators at least.

But the Federal Government doesn’t seem to deny that bloggers are journalists or news sources after all;

FOIA reform: Bloggers are journalists, too
By Nate Anderson of ARSTechnica.com

It’s not every day that a senator takes to the floor to defend “Internet blogs and other Web-based forms of media,” but Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has done just that in his recent push to pass a Freedom of Information Act reform bill he has coauthored with two Republicans.

The Senate passed the OPEN Government Act last week (which builds on previous reform attempts), and the House followed suit on Tuesday of this week. The reforms in the bill make it easier for bloggers and other Internet journalists to make FOIA requests without paying fees, and they strengthen deadlines for agencies to respond to requests. Contractors who work for the federal government are now explicitly covered by FOIA rules, and a new FOIA Ombudsman will help resolve disputes outside of court. The legislation awaits President Bush’s pen.

FOIA has always exempted journalists from paying fees to access government records (other citizens and companies are charged for search time and duplication of documents), but the rise of the Internet has made it more difficult for government agencies to decide if someone is a legitimate “journalist” or not.

The Rest of The Story here

You know that blogging has been determined as being legitimate news media in several court decisions, but are we as bloggers considered the legitimate press?

According to wikipedia.com;

The news media refers to the section of the mass media that focuses on presenting current news to the public. These include print media (newspapers, magazines); broadcast media (radio stations, television stations, television networks), and increasingly Internet-based media (World Wide Web pages, weblogs).

Thats all good, but does that mean that event coordinators will give you a press pass because you run a news and media blog?

Well according to a report on the way the law views media and how it affects the Freedom of Information Act says that online media and freelance journalists do qualify and they attribute it to the definition of news media but the CIA.

GovernmentExecutive.com is reporting that the CIA has adopted a new definition of “news media” that could significantly reduce the fees and costs for citizen journalists who request documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The new rule, which became effective on July 18, 2007, adopts the definition of “news media” contained in a 1987 Office of Management and Budget FOIA guidebook that includes “alternative media” that are disseminated electronically “through telecommunications.” The CIA’s final rule states:

***”Representative of the News Media refers to any person actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large, and publishers of periodicals (but only in those instances when they can qualify as disseminators of “news”) who make their products available for purchase or subscription by the general public. These examples are not intended to be all-inclusive. Moreover, as traditional methods of news delivery evolve (e.g., electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media would be included in this category. In the case of “freelance” journalists, they may be regarded as working for a news organization if they can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that organization, even though not actually employed by it. A publication contract would be the clearest proof, but agencies may also look to the past publication record of a requestor in making this determination: * * *

What this new definition means is that citizen journalists would likely be on the same footing as members of traditional news media who, along with educational, noncommercial, and scientific groups, have a special status under FOIA because they do not have to pay fees for the agency to search and review requested documents and are only charged for duplication costs after the first 100 pages. See 32 CFR sec. 1900.13. Morever, if a citizen journalist can show that the disclosure of the documents is in the public interest, he or she can have the duplication costs waived as well.

So a note to those who coordinate events and have been refusing press credentials to bloggers who distribute the news on the web; You’ll soon have to give out a few more press passes.

The Rest of The Story about that new law here

(Source) The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.
- Eugene McCarthy

Need I say more? How can I? It’s so succinct. And true.

News and Media Blog

(Daily Dish) It needs to be stated again and again that the fundamental job of the president is not to protect the people of America, but to protect their constitution. This president has gotten things exactly the wrong way round. In a terror war, we have to acclimatize ourselves to the fact that many Americans may have to die as a consequence of a collective decision not to become a police state or a presidential protectorate. A free country that remains free in the face of terror will necessarily have many casualties. A police state would have fewer casualties. Given a choice between a loss of life and retaining constitutional liberties, what would you pick? And what would the first Americans have picked?

I think it is very clear what the first Americans would have picked. Benjamin Franklin said the nation that gives up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither liberty nor security. It looks like America has relegated itself to the category of undeserving.

The slippage is evident in every segment of society. Government is getting bigger, liberty is getting smaller. Read any James Bovard book and you’ll see what I mean. I am currently reading Terrorism and Tyranny and the evidence he packs against George W. Bush and John Ashcroft in trampling upon liberty is astounding. Every American should read this book. If you listen to the president, terrorism is the biggest threat to liberty. I’d have to disagree. The U.S. government is the biggest threat to liberty - and it’s not getting better.

News and Media Blog

Users uploading content are now asked to identify their photos as “safe,” “moderate” or “restricted.” By default, searches on Flickr return only images that have been categorized as safe. To include images from the other categories, users must be logged in to Flickr, and must specify these options on the Advanced Search page.

When I first read the headline to the above article about Flickr, appropriately titled “How Porn And Family-Friendly Photos Co-Exist On Flikr,” I thought, Oh Geez, here’s another rant on how pornography online is destroying families. Then I realized it was a Wired article. Wired magazine doesn’t generally engage in such rants, so I was intrigued.

Instead, the article focuses on how Yahoo has transformed Flickr into a safe place for anyone to view photos while protecting the rights of erotic photographers and their audiences to see the material that they want to see. I’ll have to admit, the solution is rather simple yet quite sophisticated. Who’d have thought that Yahoo would use socially-driven technology to solve a social (RE: non-political) issue.

I call it a non-political issue because it doesn’t require a political solution. Too many anti-pornography enthusiasts expect Big Government to punish those who exercise their God-given inalienable rights to perversion. While it is entirely reasonable to believe certain images are objectionable - even downright offensive - it is also reasonable to expect that an individual has a right to their own viewing pleasure as long as it doesn’t impinge upon the rights of others to be free from seeing the same material that, antithetically, brings them pain. Yahoo has effectively presented a solution to an age-old problem that to date no government bureaucrat has been able to muster - how to respect the rights of two adverse and directly opposed groups without infringing upon the rights of either.

It’s the government’s job to do this, but more often than not, it fails. Do any of us ever wonder why?

News and Media Blog