More on 'Dad, Rush Limbaugh and Me' - Los Angeles Times

Madeline Janis wrote an op-ed article in August  18, 2013 LA Times that described how her father became a fan of Rush Limbaugh and how that created strife in her relationship with her father.  There were many postings and a follow on set of editorials that showed that others also had a similar experience with their older parents:

More on 'Dad, Rush Limbaugh and Me' - Los Angeles Times:

My wife's father, Henry, also had the same thing happen to him.  He was always an outdoorsman, and an environmentalist.  However, after listening to Rush, he was gradually won over.  Listening to Rush was almost like an obsession.  His conversations always seemed to move to political subjects and positions that Rush took.  He suddenly became bigoted against women, other races, and gays.  In fact, he wrote an editorial that was published in his local newspaper that condemned gays.  That article offended his wife's son and daughter-in-law who have a gay son, and they no longer spoke to Henry for his final 10 years of life.



I always wondered how the well-educated and informed citizens of Japan or Germany could have fallen for the right-wing positions taken by their politicians prior to World War II.  It seems impossible for me to comprehend how both countries which were based upon peace-loving religions could become blood-thirsty killing machines.  But it happened.  Now I can see!  With very careful control of media, a radical right-wing ideology can spread, and blind people to reason.  I worry that Rush Limbaugh and his types, combined with the enormous power of Rupert Murdoch's media empire could push the US into a similar situation.

Richard Branson and James Cameron want to save the high seas - Los Angeles Times

Richard Branson and James Cameron wrote an editorial that was published in the LA Times in August 2013

Richard Branson and James Cameron want to save the high seas - Los Angeles Times: (also on Virgin's web site here)

I'm convinced that we need international laws for controlling the seas, along with power to enforce those laws.  The UN is the place to do it!



The US has continually been the main opposition to a new high seas agreement for the UN.  Apparently the US Republican groups are opposed to giving the UN any authority over the global oceans, and those groups, along with pharmaceutical and plastic companies are big contributors to influential congressmen and senators who have fought against any new ocean protection treaties.



Somehow, I would think there has to be some common ground to protect the ocean --and the planet.  I'm glad that Branson and Cameron have taken a stand.  However, it will take many more leaders to also step forward to get the action the world needs!

Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times

In today's LA Times, Saree Makdisi presents a good case why Israel should be described as an apartheid country.  Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times:  I thought his argument was reasonable, and was based upon the international legal definitions.

Michael Oren, a previous Israeli ambassador to the US wrote a response to the argument, ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html )  which quibbled about the terms involved in the definition of Apartheid.   The overarching argument he presented was that Israel still feels that they are "at war" with the Arabs, and that absolves their treatment of all non-Jews.  During Apartheid, the South African government also felt that they were "at war" with the black majority.  They were trying to defend "their way of life" from the masses of their country.  It isn't clear what the difference is.

During Apartheid in South Africa, the US could have done a lot to stop it.  However our government generally sided with the South African Government.  Israel, and the US helped the Government of South Africa and refused for a long time to support the anti-apartheid movement.  Israel and the US helped provide weapons to South Africa, and the US refused to sign UN documents which defined and condemned Apartheid.

Many people describe Israel as a friend of the US.  But while they accept our billions of dollars in foreign aid, they are the only country in that region who has continually spied on our government, stolen our corporate trade secrets, and  has attacked our military ships.   We ask them to quit building "settlements" and they snub their nose at us.  I wouldn't call that a "friendship" --more like a parasite.  They seem to want to start a war with Iran over nuclear weapons, while they maintain their own -- which is one of the reasons that everyone else in the region feels they need them.  I think we need some "tough love" in dealing with Israel.  I wish the US Jews would see it that way too.  They have made it illegal for US citizens to donate money to any cause but their own.

Use of license plate photo databases is raising privacy concerns - Los Angeles Times

I knew that Government police agencies were tracking license plates.  But I didn't realize there were so many private businesses doing the same thing.



Use of license plate photo databases is raising privacy concerns - Los Angeles Times:



Again, I think that these database collections are a valuable tool for police and businesses.  I also don't think this sort of data collection necessarily violates our Bill of Rights.  Our founding fathers pretty much knew where everyone was in their community, and recognized everyone on sight, or by the horse they rode.



However there should be some sort of registration to maintain such a data base, requiring a license, inspection, and controls on them to protect everyone.

Truth in Media Reporting or Advertising

Do advertisers have to tell the truth?  Do newspapers, radio and television have to tell the truth?  Does our constitutionally-protected right to free speech permit us to lie when using public media?  Who can we trust?

I find it interesting that we have such a large variety of rules concerning "free speech" in the US.

The US Supreme court is hearing a case which could end up allowing political advertisements to lie as much as they want.  However, there are already rules that require media to publish "opposing viewpoints" when not a paid ad. There is a bill in congress to allow travel companies to lie about their prices:  See this article by Christopher Elliott for USA Today  I hate the way the airlines are now pricing their fares, with so many add-ons --sometimes with surprises at the airport!  Clearly not a fair system of competition!

However drug and medical device manufacturers must tell the truth about their products, and must provide all of the contraindications and side effects as part of their advertising.  Most consumer products must also tell the truth about their products.

It seems to me that when someone uses a Government-regulated medium for communication with the public that there should be some sort of regulation concerning reasonable truth.  Broadcast radio & TV are obviously candidates for that rule, but what about cable TV & internet?  What about newspapers? There are many newspapers and magazines which continually lie or clearly "stretch" the truth far beyond a reasonable amount.

Google recently removed misleading ads by anti-abortion groups which tried to hook women who were looking for abortion providers into counseling.  Should it be legal to post misleading ads?  Or should it be legal for a media (internet, newspapers, TV & radio) to refuse to publish misleading ads? Craigslist and Google were forced to remove ads and links to advertisers of illegal drugs and prostitution.  Why doesn't that violate free speech?

If the US puts restrictions on lying in the media, what is to stop those companies from lying in their advertisements on international web sites and media?  Do we need international regulation and policing of media for truth?  Or do we remove all regulation and let the reader, viewer or listener decide for themselves?   

Brazilian president signs internet 'Bill of Rights' into law - SC Magazine

It appears that Brazil is taking a leadership role in internet privacy and freedoms.



Brazilian president signs internet 'Bill of Rights' into law - SC Magazine:



It is so sad that the US is abdicating leadership role on the internet.  We invented it, and then attempted to destroy it.

Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com

It is interesting that now there will be another large database collected by car companies, that will be almost as interesting as the highway intersection camera data, security camera data, internet data, telephone data etc, and also as much of an invasion of our privacy.

This article by Johnathan Horn in today's Union Tribune describes a bill in the California State Senate to force auto companies to share the data they collect with car owners and car repair shops.  The bill was introduced by Sen Bill Monning, a Democrat from Marin County.

Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com:  The issue is extremely interesting because it involves so many aspects of law, privacy, security, and engineering.  Also it is interesting to see the crazy mix of groups in the coalitions for, and against the bill.  The AAA is in favor of it, but the NAACP is against it, along with the car companies.

This bill in the State legislature could set some precedents for other states.  Eventually it probably will need to be addressed by Federal legislation