HOPEFORHAITINOW.ORG

Donate Now: 1-877-99-HAITI in US/Canada, or go to www.hopeforhaitinow.org

THE SUPREMES JUST CHANGED THE GAME

Politics, big business, money and high technology. Now there is a recipe for power, right? Chew on that for a moment while we explore what happened in the Supreme Court this week.

The Justices this week amended a six decade old law that limits the amount of money that corporations or labor unions can contribute to a political candidate’s campaign. Until now, there were severe restrictions on such donations, particularly since 2002 when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (more commonly referred to as McCain-Feingold) was enacted. This week, the Supreme Court essentially negated McCain-Feingold, and opened the door to a new era in which corporations and labor unions can spend as much of their organizational funds as they wish to ensure that “their” candidate is elected.

So what? Well, critics of the decision to reverse McCain-Feingold say this will severely inhibit the electoral process. Big business and labor will elect the President, while the common man, if you will, will have even less power and influence on perhaps the most important decision the citizenry makes.

The decision is the result of a suit brought by Citizens United, an conservative group that produced a film called “Hillary The Movie” during the 2008 campaign. The anti-Hillary film was shut down after a federal court ruled that the showing of this film violated the McCain-Feingold act. Because it was paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election, the court ruled it was in direct violation. Here is the trailer from the movie:

Supporters of the Supreme Court decision are leaning heavily on the First Amendment to the Constitution, somehow connecting the right of free speech with the right to spend massive amounts of money to ensure that a message is conveyed to the public. That is the sticking point in my mind. Since when is the amount of money someone spends to convey an idea commensurate with how much freedom he or she has to say it?

The Court was split 5-4 on this. Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the majority opinion, said, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.”

The great irony here is that this grassroots, non-profit organization, Citizens United, managed to open the doors for the biggest profit-making corporations in the world to spend astronomical amounts of cash to elect politicians that will favor their commercial agendas.

Something tells me when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they were not associating the amount of money someone had with the freedom that they had to speak up. It is the current Supreme Court that has now made that assertion, and it seems quite twisted. And how timely: For years then, according to the Court, America has been denying corporate America its right to express itself. It just so happens that right as corporations get to spend as much as they want to promote a candidate, technology is simultaneously sophisticated enough to spread their message to a wider audience in real time. In terms of the potential for special interest groups to sway an election, I'd call this moment a perfect storm.

President Obama is not pleased. Shortly after the decision was rendered, Obama said, "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

With that he immediately issued a directive to Congress to start hashing this whole thing out in a bipartisan fashion and to push back against the Court’s decision. The trouble is that legal experts say there is not a whole lot Congress can do to counter the Supreme Court.

Talk radio is having a field day with this development. On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh pronounced Obama an “idiot who just happens to be President.” When Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the Court’s decision “undermines Democracy” and taints the electoral process, Fox's Sean Hannity used his airtime to launch personal attacks on Schumer, rather than to counter the Senator’s claims with a reasonable defense of the decision. Here is what Schumer said after the decision was handed down:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here is why this matters to you. For example, if the oil industry spends millions of dollars during a Presidential campaign, and its favored candidate wins, clearly the industry will have great persuasive power in Washington for the next four to eight years. That power easily can lead to legislation that favors the industry at the expense of your bank account. If the auto industry pushes its chosen candidate through, is it not possible it would use its newfound clout to see that certain safety or environmentally friendly features on cars may be eliminated, since the industry would prefer to spend less money manufacturing its vehicles?

And what about the airline industry? Currently in complete disarray, without even a person at the helm of the Transportation Safety Administration, what if it manages to maneuver a candidate into office? Will air marshals on domestic and international flights be eliminated to save money? Will airport security personnel be pared down to limit expenses? Will airlines manage to continue flying certain planes well after they should have been retired?

The Supreme Court’s decision is all about you. Everything that occurs in the upcoming elections this year and in 2012 is now likely to be highly influenced by corporate dollars and less influenced by you. The activity that occurs in an administration created by big business is likely to work against you, rather than for you. This brings us back to the strange bedfellows of politics, big business, money and high technology. Where do you and I fit in there? I can’t see that we do.
(Read the entire Supreme Court opinion on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission here)

LIMBAUGH LAND: A VERY SCARY PLACE

On balance I have to say the American people usually get it right. Whether voting for a legislator or leader, or tuning in to a television program in large numbers, or even buying a consumer product en masse. Oh, I’ve had my moments of disappointment in Americans, like the time that jury found Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of two murders he obviously committed. Or the time that I witnessed America elect George W. Bush for a second term. But generally we Americans come through.

That is why I’m having such a hard time figuring out the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon. If you think phenomenon is too strong a word, let the numbers tell the story. Limbaugh is currently in the midst of a $400 million, eight-year contract, easily positioning him as the highest paid radio personality in the history of the medium. Nobody has an accurate handle on the size of his audience, but it is rarely estimated lower than 20 million listeners. Let me put that in perspective for you: In September, 2009, Nielsen Media Research put Oprah’s television audience at about seven million viewers daily. Limbaugh is heard three hours a day on more than 600 radio stations. The Armed Forces Radio Network broadcasts his show to military service personnel all over the world. It is highly possible that “Rush Radio” is heard by more human beings than anything else on the radio.

Limbaugh is the embodiment of the vulnerability of the First Amendment. He has twisted, distorted and maligned the most precious freedom we have – expression. His comments about the Haiti tragedy are probably his most heinous to date. So I am left to wonder, why are the American people not getting it right with this guy, when I generally trust that they do? What is it about this man that engenders such loyalty?

In case you’re one of the four Americans who haven’t yet heard Limbaugh’s outrageous post-earthquake comments, listen:

As one who communicates for a living, I support Limbaugh’s inalienable right to say such blatantly mean-spirited and hateful things in a public forum. I support it because if somehow Limbaugh’s right to express himself is limited, then so could my freedom or your freedom be limited. Freedom comes with a high price and in radio right now, the price tag is Limbaugh.

Still, many times when the man speaks, I cringe. Of the American military personnel who tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Limbaugh said if the Americans are punished, “ we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?”

In 2006 when actor Michael J. Fox appeared in a campaign ad, visibly exhibiting the shaky symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, Limbaugh said, "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

Limbaugh’s racist and sexist rants are now legendary. Of the black citizenry of the U.S., he once said, “They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?” He labeled President Obama a “halfrican American.” Regarding unskilled laborers, Limbaugh is on record with this: “I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.” And, of the women’s movement, Limbaugh offered, "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

I could go on, but you get the picture. If you dismiss Limbaugh as simply an extremist fringe talking head, keep in mind those 20+ million devoted listeners. How many of them are buying into Limbaugh’s bigotry, hatred and negative rants? And how many others are those millions influencing by spreading the Limbaugh ideology? And what does it contribute to a civilized society? Often, Limbaugh is simply fueling the American fire of racism, frustration over unemployment, public disillusionment with government and widespread panic about terrorism. Limbaugh rarely offers reasonable solutions. Recently he told his listeners they should not worry about the cost of health insurance, simply because it costs less than buying a new car. Never mind that many of his listeners have never even owned a new car.

So, back to loyalty: I believe Limbaugh’s followers are loyal because he simply speaks up. Even in a culture that legally protects free speech, many Americans are afraid to voice their views for fear of being categorized, shunned or dismissed as extremists. Rush has no such fear. He has built his fortunes on the misfortunes of others, and he has been increasingly vocal about it for decades. Perhaps his listeners are living vicariously through Limbaugh. Or…more frighteningly, perhaps many of them truly believe what he says.

BARACK & MICHELLE: 21ST CENTURY SUPERMODELS

He is rapidly becoming a fashion icon, a sort of 21st century standard-bearer for casual cool, but a guy who can also wear a suit in the classic tradition of Cary Grant. She is the definition of personal style and looks as ready for action in gym shoes and Capri pants as she does in a couture gown by a cutting edge designer.

Together or separately they’re easily too cool for school, as they say. If anybody can sell a product without saying a word, it is definitely these two. There’s only one problem. He is the President of the United States and she is the First Lady. And as we all know, while people in their position go political all the time, they never go commercial.

Until now. In New York this week, people in Times Square stopped hard in their tracks when they saw a billboard featuring President Obama modeling a Weatherproof jacket. Huffington Post reported Tuesday that Weatherproof purchased rights to the photo from Associated Press. The picture was taken when the President traveled to China in November.

The billboard comes right on the heels of PETA’s anti-fur ad featuring Mrs. Obama, alongside Oprah, Tyra Banks and Carrie Underwood. The copy reads, “Fur Free and Fabulous.”

So, how cool is that, that these two are using their clout and popularity to promote clothing sales and to stand up for the rights of animals? In two words – Not Cool. As if we haven’t dulled enough societal boundaries lately, now the first couple has become a sales tool. And to add insult to injury, neither of them authorized the use of their images for the sale of products or the promotion of social causes. PETA and Weatherproof each did this all on their own, without so much as seeking the approval of the Obamas.

Do we really want to see that much mixing of government and commerce? I don’t think so. It forces us to envision Nancy Pelosi selling Swiffer mops, or Barney Frank hawking condos in Boca. I’m telling you this: The day I see that whacked out Congresswoman Michelle Bachman in an ad for the America Rifle Association is the day I have to re-patriate myself to another continent somewhere.

There is no precedent for Presidents being used to sell outerwear, and there should not be. His job is to manage the system of government that allows for the free enterprise system. There are 300 million other Americans that Weatherproof can put on a billboard in the most high profile intersection in the country. Once we dull these lines, we open ourselves up to all types of complications. Less than ethical elected officials will be cutting quid pro quo deals with retailers and service providers. Manufacturers and other commercial entities will be working under the table with legislators to get them to push through legislation that is favorable to their industries. It is simply a design for disaster.

And what of the legal angle of all of this? Is this not a clear case of appropriation? Weatherproof clearly used Obama’s image for commercial gain, without getting a release to do so from the President. PETA used Michelle Obama to promote its cause, never seeking her permission. There are privacy laws in place in this country to protect high profile citizens from this exact thing.

Appropriation is clearly defined: Use of a person's name, likeness or identity for trade or advertising purposes without consent. Hell, Bette Midler sued Ford Motor Company for appropriation one time, when the car company hired a singer for one of its commercials, to sing a Midler song imitating Bette’s voice. She won. This is a tough law: Nearly a half century after Marilyn Monroe died, if you want to use her image to promote a product in 2010, you have to get the approval of her estate. Otherwise, you can be sued for appropriation.

The law is tried and true, and the fact that a retailer and an animal rights organization are thumbing their noses at it is a societal travesty. What next? Are attorneys going to decide they’re not well for the attorney/client privilege laws and just tell TMZ exactly what their high profile clients have to say about their cases? Are plastic surgeons going to dish to Perez Hilton about what their movie star clients had done to their faces? Where do we draw the line on who can use whom for commercial or social gain, while completely disregarding tradition, personal privacy, or even law? The Obamas are not Jon and Kate. The level of decorum afforded the President’s family is necessary in a civil society. The image of the U.S. has been roundly diminished worldwide – we just don’t need the President selling jackets on a billboard that sits on top of a Red Lobster. We just don’t.

THE HIGH PRICE OF A GOOD STORY

By now, even the most apathetic media consumer among you knows that journalism is in a transitional period. Traditional media is not faring so well – newspaper circulation is at record lows, magazines have folded, network TV is constantly trying to find new ways to keep you tuned it as you gain more and more cable options. The most valuable capital to trade today is information, and the juicier the better. But with the intense competition among news and information outlets, how can anybody be sure to get the juice fastest and first? Well, to paraphrase an old adage – money talks and ethics walks.

It’s called “checkbook journalism,” and it seems to be more and more prevalent, even with old-line networks. As a journalist and a guy who teaches media ethics, I’ve been keeping a close eye on this for a few years now, but last week my eye almost got poked out (figuratively), when I heard that David Goldman and his son Sean were flown back to the states from Brazil on a jet chartered by NBC. If you are not familiar with the Goldman story, click here.

It is no coincidence that David Goldman (below left, pictured on the NBC plane with his son) sat down for a heart-to-heart with the Today Show’s Meredith Vierra just days after his return from Brazil. NBC paved the way with the free plane trip, and whatever other financial arrangements may have been made.
NBC denies it. The network claims its actions have been misinterpreted. The network spin goes like this: Goldman was booked for the Today Show interview before arrangements were made to fly father and son back to the U.S. It so happens NBC already had a jet chartered to bring it employees home for Christmas. A spokesperson for the network told Associated Press that the Goldmans were “invited on [the plane] as guests,” and the gesture had nothing to do with “booking strategy.”

Here’s my professional response to that: Uh-huh. Right.

Just days later, after man-child terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Detroit-bound flight 253, the American public was introduced to Jasper Schuringa, the Dutch airline passenger who reportedly threw himself on Abdulmutallab and averted the disaster. Schuringa appeared on CNN (right) to detail his ordeal. CNN reportedly paid a handsome sum to obtain cell phone photos of the scuffle, and denies that the payment had anything to do with booking Schuringa for his appearance on the network. Uh-huh. Right.

Why does it matter, you might ask? So what if a news organization pays for information? After all, the National Enquirer has been doing it for decades and has never tried to hide it. And do not write the Enquirer off so fast, as many are prone to do. The Enquirer is the publication that broke the whole John Edwards baby-daddy scandal. More recently, the Tiger Woods adultery story first appeared in the Enquirer days before any other news organization picked up the story. Still, is there something inherently sleazy about paying for interviews or information?

In a word – yes. Like anything else, when you grease somebody’s palm for whatever product, service or information they can offer, you have leverage on how they offer it. What you media consumers need is truth. That’s the real business of journalism. But when the source of that truth is paid for information, some media organizations may be prone to persuade the source to tell the story in a way that will garner the greatest readership, viewership of online hits. Then the truth is no longer the truth. It becomes a product that can be shaped, twisted or distorted to suit the media organization’s purpose.

News organizations will tell you they don’t pay for stories or interviews. They will tell you that they do indeed sometimes pay “licensing fees” for the use of photos or videos. Anyone who works in the media industries knows those fees actually buy the story. And the public is now savvy enough to know there is some worth to what they have to offer. After the CNN interview Schuringa made it clear that he would not appear on any other broadcast without being paid. And, as you may have noticed, Schuringa has all but disappeared from view. That is because it came out that CNN had paid a “licensing fee” for the use of the cell phone photo. Then Schuringa became too sticky to reasonably touch, so other media organizations took a pass on using him.

The bottom line: Here is who loses the most when the highly questionable practice of checkbook journalism is employed – YOU. The real truth about the events that happen in your world is harder and harder to decipher, and once seemingly reputable journalists or media organizations start paying for information, that information is instantly sullied, and the truth you need exceeds your grasp.

MEGA-CHURCH PASTORS VIE FOR PENNIES FROM HEAVEN

Oh God (and as you’ll see if you keep reading, I use the name appropriately here). Everything old is new again. Rick Warren (right,center, with John McCain and President Obama)--the celebrity pastor who helms the Saddleback mega-church, and who was invited to speak at President Obama’s inauguration – has sent a letter to his tens of thousands of congregants. It says this:

“With 10% of our church family out of work due to the recession, our expenses in caring for our community in 2009 rose dramatically while our income stagnated. Still, with wise management, we've stayed close to our budget all year. Then... this last weekend the bottom dropped out. On the last weekend of 2009, our total offerings were less than half of what we normally receive - leaving us $900,000 in the red for the year, unless you help make up the difference today and tomorrow.”

Warren issued his plea this week, and made it clear the money has to be in place by January 1.

Hello? Does this kind of desperate last minute plea by a celebrity clergyman ring any bells? Let me refresh your memory. High profile pastor Oral Roberts – 1987 – remember? That was the year he told his congregants that unless he was able to raise $8 million by March 31 the Lord would call him home. Whew! Lucky for Oral, he raised $9.1 million quick and the Lord didn’t call him until this very week.

Meanwhile, what about Rod Parsley (left)? A less familiar name, perhaps, but equally as desperate as Rick and Oral. Parsley is the head of the Ohio-based World Harvest Church. This week, Parsley told his congregants this:

“…Everything is at stake…I’m facing the greatest financial attack in 30 years…All I’m asking is for you to help save this great ministry…Let’s turn back this demonically-inspired attack against this ministry…”

The bottom line? Parsley wants members of his flock to pony up $250,000, and fast. And what’s worse – apparently the devil is to blame. Not the U.S. economy, not mis-management of funds, not over-spending, not anything man-made. The devil!

Color me skeptical. Even color me cynical, if it makes you feel better, but I have watched these guys over the years and one wonders: Why do the financial crises of mega-churches always occur so desperately at the eleventh hour? Why are the churches that take in more money than some mega-corporations, not doing a better job of managing their businesses? They are indeed businesses. Purportedly, they are non-profit businesses, but they are businesses just the same. They have customers called congregants and a product that is of great value to the congregants. They have cash flow, real estate, investments and a promotional machine in place that could easily rival the NFL, AIG and Bank of America combined. So, why do they find themselves in such desperate straits?

Further, why are the Warrens, Roberts and Parsleys of the spiritual world always such controversial figures? Warren, you will recall, is the guy who in 2005 said Michael Schiavo’s decision to remove a feeding tube from his wife Terry, who was in a persistent vegetative state, was “an atrocity worthy of Nazism.” He is also the man who publicly crossed the divide between church and state by endorsing Proposition 8, the 2008 California bill that eventually outlawed gay marriage. Warren is also the guy who gathered thousands of young people in a stadium and talked about how powerful Hitler was when he gathered the youth of Germany together in 1939. Watch:


And Parsley? Well, Parsley, who calls himself a “Christocrat,” and who makes no bones about his political views ("The left has chosen the courts as a major battlefield over social issues”) strongly allied himself with John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign. By Spring of ’08 McCain publicly denounced Parsley’s characterization of Islam as “inherently violent.” Still, as recently as two months prior to rejecting Parsley’s endorsement, at a campaign rally in Cincinnatti, McCain hailed Parsley as a “spiritual guide.” Parsley may have taken his spiritual/political connection a bit too far by 2006, when a group of Ohio clergymen charged that Parsley had violated his church’s tax-exempt status by publicly taking sides on political issues.

Men like Warren and Parsley increasingly come off as extremists in the public arena. Their followers are often average Americans in need of spiritual guidance and affiliation. Those are legitimate human needs that appear to be trampled on by celebrity pastors who prey on their followers’ often limited finances. From the outside looking in, one tends to see these guys as financially predatory toward congregants who are not just looking for something in which to believe, but for someone in whom to believe. The media tends to operate as a societal watchdog, and frequently Warren and Parsley have taken verbal shots at media organizations. Do they fear public scrutiny of their closely guarded finances? Are there elements of successful mega-ministries that their keepers feel are not suitable for public consumption? And what about these last minute, frantic please for funds? Why?

So, will the desperate Rick Warren succeed in raising almost a million dollars in a two-day period? And will the equally anxious Rod Parsley encourage his followers to ante up 250 grand in record time? Compared to the late Oral Roberts’ campaign to raise $8 million way back in 1987, Warren and Parsley’s requests are peanuts. And sadly there are an awful lot of trusting people out there who will heed the call. Call it a hunch, but I predict the pastors will way, way exceed their stated financial goals.

HANK KRAKOWSKI'S $5 MILLION LAPSE IN JUDGMENT

How about that Hank Krakowski, huh? What a party animal! Wait…what? What did you say? Oh, you don’t know who Hank Krakowski is? There I go again, making assumptions. Sorry. I just figured you must have known him because he just spent $5 million of your money on a three week party in Atlanta.

Krakowski (below,right) is the chief operating officer of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). You know, the FAA – the agency in charge of our air traffic control system and responsible for flight inspection standards. Gosh, who knew they had 3,600 managers? And how fun is this? All 3,600 got to go to the party in Atlanta, 1200 on each of three successive weekends. And Hank? Oh please, Hank was there the entire time, and he got to stay in the plush hotel’s “Governor’s Suite.” By all accounts, the booze was flowing and those crazy managers were partying like it was 1999.

You know…1999, when national unemployment was not in double digits, when the country was not spending billions of dollars annually on two wars, when millions of Americans were not experiencing home foreclosures. But listen, let’s not get judgmental here. The FAA needs a few cocktails. With all the plane crashes this past decade, the reports of safety violations, the commercial airline pilots flying drunk, airliners overshooting their destinations because pilots are “distracted”…I mean come on. Hank and his posse need a martini. Or two. It’s stressful being the FAA. How much bad press can one agency take before it just cracks? Bad publicity like the time that FAA internal report got leaked in 2005 – the one that revealed that weak FAA management had undermined passenger safety at some of the FAA air traffic control facilities. Jeez, it’s always something, right? I mean who can forget all those pesky rumors about the FAA having received 52 warnings about the 9/11 attacks well before the tragedies, in plenty of time to have prevented thousands of deaths? I ask you…who wouldn’t need a jello shot after that?

So it comes as no surprise that Krakowski, no stranger to controversy, arranged the three week party, er, uh, I mean convention – after all, the chief reasoned to an undercover ABC reporter, “This is worth it because we have to get the frontline managers on-board with what we're trying to do.” What Krakowski purports that the FAA was doing was training managers on the new contract enacted for air traffic controllers. Here’s the rub, though: The contract in question went into effect in October, and the big par-tay happened in December. Kind of like a big 1999-style hotel Christmas party, you know? Watch this ABC News report:


There’s one thing that is sort of bothering me about the party, though. I mean $5 million, right? I think Krakowski thinks we taxpayers forgot about things that could directly affect our safety. Things like revelations that air traffic controllers are still, in many locations, using communication technology developed in the 1960s. Things like the 2008 Time Magazine interview with a veteran air traffic controller. He said, “The FAA had a mandate from Congress to start running things like a business, to be more cost-effective. That has manifested itself in the rise of runway incursions [airplanes invading each other's ground space]. These are very clearly the result of a reduction in staffing, a decline in experience, and an increase in the use of employee overtime, which leads to increased fatigue. The result is a 300% to 400% increase in operational errors.”

Let’s review: Staffing reductions, fatigued air traffic controllers, terrorist threats, antiquated technology and “operational errors.” Add to all of that interminable flight delays and I’m thinking what may be needed here is a COO who is a tad more careful with each $5 million that he oversees. And I’m thinking cocktails, hors d’oeuvres and party weekends for 3,600 managers in plush hotels may be slightly inappropriate at this time. The FAA is, and has long been, mired in controversy, questionable safety oversights and inadequate staffing. Krakowski’s management style and priorities have often been called in to question by people in high places. His judgment has also been questioned. And if there is one thing we need regarding air traffic control and airliner safety, it is impeccable judgment.

NO, Ms. Napolitano - The System Did Not Work

If you are one of the millions of travelers who spent a portion of your holiday trip battling the angry airport crowds or desperately trying to re-route yourself due to severe northeast storms, chances are your focus was simply getting from point A to point B. The good news? Well, really there is no good news right now about all that. The bad news? Your airport/airline experience is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to air travel issues.

Here are two names with which you may or may not be familiar. Jim DeMint and Gale Rossides. These are two mighty antagonists in this story. Jim DeMint is the Republican U.S. senator from North Carolina. Gail Rossides is the acting administrator of the Transportation Security Administration. Both are polarizing and controversial figures in this story.

Let’s start with DeMint: Jim DeMint (right) has been a senator since 2005. Before that he served seven year as the Congressional representative from is state’s fourth district, considered by some to be one of the most conservative in the state. In fact, DeMint is often referred to as the most conservative of all U.S. senators. For the record, DeMint supports a no-exception full ban on abortions. He has suggested that all illegal immigrants should be summarily dismissed from the U.S., shipped back to their countries of origin and required to apply for entry into the U.S. Significantly, he was only one of two U.S. senators to vote against the confirmation of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State (the other was our own Louisiana Senator David Vitter). There is nothing remotely moderate about Jim DeMint. And oh…by the way, he is now the ranking member of the U.S. Senate subcommittee on aviation operations, safety and security.

It is that last distinction that matters here. In 2008, President Obama revealed his intention to unionize Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. The TSA falls under Homeland Security as the agency responsible for security in all modes of travel. Right now, the TSA does not have a Chief Administrator. The Obama administration has nominated counter-terrorism guru Errol Southers for the post. That brings us back to DeMint. The Senator is credited with delaying Southers’ confirmation, due to DeMint’s opposition to allowing collective bargaining for TSA employees.

That, of course, brings us to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,(left) now and forever to be known as the Christmas Day “underwear bomber.” Abdulmutallab may be one of many such bombers, as the buzz now is that a number of other would-be terrorists are set to destroy U.S. bound flights. Not surprisingly, Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the near-tragedy on the Northwest Airlines Detroit-bound flight 253. What is somewhat more surprising is that reports indicate that Yemen, a poverty-stricken middle-eastern country, may be ground zero for the training of other commercial airline suicide bombers.

The TSA, the agency designed to protect you and me from the Abdulmutallabs of the world, has an acting administrator, Gale Rossides. (right) One could say Rossides does not have the sense of urgency required for the job. In November a government report was released that indicates that air cargo that is to be loaded on passenger planes is not being properly safeguarded in the warehouses where it is stored prior to flight. According to the report, investigators were able to easily infiltrates supposedly secure storage warehouses, and it gets worse: Reportedly, some cargo handlers have not even completed required background checks. In a classic case of understatement, Rossides responded to the report by saying simply that it raises “legitimate concerns.”

Rossides is a bureaucrat. What we need at TSA is an aggressive anti-terrorist problem solver who will put boots on the ground, tighten up screening processes for both passengers and employees, and take all necessary steps stop people like Abdulmutallab from boarding airliners. Evidently, we do not have that leadership at TSA right now. Interestingly it was 10 years, almost to the day between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. In that decade, thousands of people lost their lives on 9/11 and al-Qaeda has stayed its course.

While Jim DeMint plays politics with the Obama administration, and Gale Rossides focuses on her often-stated goal of creating the proper “business model” for TSA, al-Queda may be taking advantage of this country’s misplaced priorities by using the time to prepare more bomb attacks.

Contrary to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s proclamations about how the system worked exactly as it was supposed to, it appears there really is no system in place to ensure the safety of American air travelers. And, it is clear that there are individuals, both elected and appointed, in positions for which they are woefully unprepared or politicized to our detriment. I, for one, do not feel particularly safe. Do you?

HOW TO READ A 21st CENTURY MAGAZINE

You just knew it had to happen. That magazine that turns up in your mailbox every month has become pretty mundane, right? Enter the Digital Newsstand.

The New York Times Reports that Time Inc., Conde Nast, the Hearst Corporation, Meredith and the News Corporation have banded together to not only save the magazine genre, but bring it forward into the digital society. While it seems that this could have happened sooner, and may have saved some now defunct publications (Gourmet, Metropolitan Home, Modern Bride, among many others), at least it is on the horizon.

Here is a quick look at the near future of Sports Illustrated:

CLUB PRIVACY: WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT?

You will hear a lot of debate in the coming days about the issue of privacy for high profile people. The debate happens periodically, but this time it started shortly after 2:30AM on Friday, November 27. That is when golf pro Tiger Woods drove his 2009 Cadillac SUV into a fire hydrant and a tree. Somewhere in the mix, his wife used a golf club to break the back windows. The exclusive Orlando, FL gated community in which they live has never seen so much nocturnal chaos. Tiger’s face was reportedly cut up, but there was no blood on the steering wheel or the dashboard, so some predatory media types concluded that Mrs. Tiger caused the lacerations when she confronted Mr. Tiger about his extra-marital affairs with various women. Of course, many of us already knew about Tiger’s affairs because the National Enquirer had conveniently informed us just two days earlier.

Since then, the Woods drama has played out on every television network, news show, talk show, tabloid, pop culture web site, celebrity magazine and even on the front pages of some major daily newspapers. Social networking sites are abuzz with chatter about the incident. Within a few days all of this will be ancient history. Does anybody remember Kate Gosselin? Richard Heene? Mark Sanford? John Ensign? John Edwards? Each could claim (and has) some level of intrusion of privacy during their own individual scandals. After all, we’re living in the high tech era of le scandale, are we not? Think back: Since we’ve all had access to countless online entities that keep us informed of everything, haven’t scandals just permeated our lives? Eliot Spitzer, Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Chris Brown, Michael Phelps, David Letterman…need I go on?

Almost every time one of the above-mentioned people was caught doing whatever they did, they issued statements pleading for privacy. As a guy who teaches media ethics and admittedly reads lots of celebrity gossip, I’d just like to be the first to clear something up for them all: You traded off your right to privacy when you decided to ask us to love you. You can’t really expect to be able to go to Target to buy socks and deodorant without many of us surrounding you. You saw success and fame as synonymous, and with the fame comes loss of self. If you do not understand all of this, ask some of your elders for guidance. Consult with Elizabeth Taylor, Elton John and Magic Johnson.

I predict each would tell you not to smoke out of a bong at a party, not to party with young women in Vegas and not to pay for sex while holding high office. They will no doubt tell you not to beat up your famous girlfriend on a public street in your car, not to use public funds to travel to see your paramour while you are governor, and not to have sex with anybody who owns a video camera. Don’t tweet, don’t Facebook, don’t text, don’t sext and don’t voice mail. If traditional media doesn’t get you, technology will. Any minute now, we’re probably going to see video tapes of the Tiger Woods incident from the very security cameras he had installed on his own property.

It is truly about bad behavior. This very morning, before I wrote this piece, I read all of the following: Rolling Stone Ron Woods, 62,(right) was arrested for assaulting his 21-year-old girlfriend. Louisiana GOP Senator and sex scandal veteran David Vitter cut in front of a line full of people waiting for coffee at the Russel Senate office building, without so much as an “excuse me.” And Tiger? Well, TMZ reports that Tiger and his alleged mistress were texting the night of the crash. Wife grabs phone, places angry call to mistress. Fight ensues, vestibule of the Woods mansion is badly damaged and, the rest is tawdry history.

A quick media ethics lesson: Privacy is a moral value. We define moral values in our culture as something held in high esteem, something honored and revered. Moral values are part of the cultural fiber that holds us all together. Other obvious moral values are elements such as truth, justice, autonomy and generosity. Bad behavior and moral values do not mix. In media we adhere to a moral value called “social utility.” That is the process of deciding which information is important to convey a story to the public and which is not. After deceiving the public with his façade of a squeaky clean image, social utility informs us that his personal behavior is viable fodder for news. So it is incongruous for Tiger Woods to issue a mea culpa that includes statements like this:

“…But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.”

I have an abiding respect for the general public’s judgment. People like John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, David Vitter, Tiger Woods and Christian Bale will likely not gain much from asking the public for privacy. But when Mike Tyson’s child died, and he asked for privacy, we obliged. When the crew of the “Miracle on the Hudson” flight asked for privacy, they got it.
When actor Owen Wilson asked for privacy after a failed suicide attempt, the press wrote about him, but did not pursue him for comment.

As a journalist and a media consumer, I would say this to Tiger Woods: All the gated communities, high-level press agents, public relations firms and athletic prowess in the world cannot protect you from the public’s disdain for deception. Success is not about how many tournaments you win, how many millions you earn or how many high profile endorsements you garner. Success is a cumulative, lifelong process that relies on a strong moral compass. Tiger, if you thought you lacked privacy before 2:30AM, November 27, you haven’t seen anything yet.