Category: Guest Authors

By Chris Freind

“I have repeatedly made clear that profiling by law enforcement is not only wrong, it is profoundly misguided and ineffective. Particularly in light of certain recent incidents we’ve seen at the local level and the widespread concerns about trust in the criminal justice process … it’s imperative that we take every possible action to institute strong and sound policing practices.”

So said Attorney General Eric Holder as he announced sweeping changes for federal law enforcement agencies. Profiling will now be banned on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Holder isn’t just wrong about profiling being ineffective, but is totally misguided in his rationale for instituting the new policy, as the recent incidents of white police officers’ altercations with blacks had nothing to do with race.

Let’s look at the truth behind race and profiling:

1. Michael Brown was not profiled in Ferguson, nor singled out because he was black. He was approached by Officer Darren Wilson because A. he was illegally walking in the street, and B. had allegedly just committed a felony in a convenience store. He fought with Wilson in the patrol car, and, as a 6-foot, 4-inch, 300-pound individual, was a potentially lethal threat. Agree with the grand jury process or not, let’s be perfectly clear that race was not a factor, as Wilson would have undoubtedly acted in the same way no matter what color his attacker was.

Race also was not a factor in the chokehold death of black New Yorker Eric Garner by a white police officer — a fact bolstered by his widow who said, “I really don’t feel like it’s a black-and-white thing.” Garner was being arrested for selling cigarettes illegally — (Really? That’s the “crime” to which New York’s finest should be allocating their time?) — but he wasn’t being profiled. Unfortunately, the grand jury got that one wrong, as Garner’s death was preventable and excessive force was used. While the officer utilizing the chokehold (a maneuver banned by the department for over two decades) should have been held for trial, the key point is that race wasn’t a factor.

So if these “recent incidents” that Holder cites were not racially motivated, why the need for new rules at all?

2. Holder’s ban only applies to federal law enforcement agencies, but he is strongly suggesting all state and local police departments adopt them. Given that some departments bow to political correctness, and still others prostitute themselves to the federal government, look for many to follow suit, especially if the feds tie their funding to implementing the rules.

3. Quite interestingly, there are exceptions. The new rules will not apply to screeners at airports and the southwest border, the Secret Service, and certain types of national security investigations. Two things come to mind:

A. Since we have exceptions for these crucially important areas, that must mean, by definition, that profiling works. In other words, it’s not “ineffective.”

B. Given that it is effective, why are we disallowing it in all other federal law enforcement areas? That’s like a football coach telling his team that they can only pass the ball when near the goal line. The self-tying of America’s hands is as dangerous as it is stupid.

4. The answer, of course, is that Holder’s ban is rooted in misguided ideas about racism and bigotry, and his belief that government-mandated political correctness is the solution. But in establishing this new policy, he has shown himself to be a hypocrite, as many of his traditional allies on the Left have been pointing out.

If profiling is bad, then it’s bad, period. Holder should have banned it in all circumstances. But since he didn’t, it’s disingenuous for him to take the moral high ground, preaching against the “evils” of profiling while still allowing it in numerous circumstances. Whatever little credibility Holder had is now gone.

5. What’s next? Will broadcasting a person’s color or gender over police radio when describing a suspect be outlawed too? Don’t laugh. That’s coming.

As it is, the FBI last year succumbed to pressure from Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott and other PC groups when it halted its “Faces Of Global Terrorism” ad campaign in Seattle (which sought the public’s help finding international terrorists). And why? Because, in McDermott’s words, the “ad featuring 16 photos of wanted terrorists is not only offensive to Muslims and ethnic minorities, but it encourages racial and religious profiling.”

Really? Showing pictures of people who, it bears repeating, are wanted for terrorism, is racist? Trying to nail people who committed heinous acts is religious profiling? Most sickening, 13 of the 16 weren’t even American! It’s bad enough that we are placating the “offended-by-everything” American crowd, but now we are instituting policies to make nice with foreigners — including those hell-bent on doing us harm. Too bad politicians aren’t profiled for intelligence before taking office.

6. Profiling is an effective tool of law enforcement, from Coast Guard interdiction to kidnappings. But, like anything else, there should be limits. Stop-and-frisk, for example, is a policy that goes beyond tactical profiling and targets people simply because of color, leading to police abuse and loss of civil liberties.

But for the vast majority of investigations, profiling serves as a reliable starting point, and for good reason. At its core, profiling is using the huge amount of law enforcement and psychological knowledge acquired over time to develop efficient methodologies to catch the bad guys. If people’s feelings are “hurt” because they happen to be the same ethnicity or religion as wanted individuals, tough. Either they have a guilty conscience, or they aren’t smart enough to understand the difference between law-breakers and law-abiders.

As a huge melting pot, America presents unique challenges to law enforcement. Terrorists are increasingly “home-grown,” and criminal syndicates are often foreign-based. To effectively combat them, profiling is the one tool, above all, that can give America’s protectors the edge they need. With proper oversight to safeguard civil liberties, profiling should always have a home in America.

Profiling Works Says Freind

By Chris Freind

Let’s face it. Smoking is cool.

Yet as the last minority with no rights, smokers get kicked in the butt: high taxes make cigarettes expensive, and society hammers them for their lifestyle choice. Enough already! It’s time we stop shaming smokers for just doing what makes them feel good.

So what if smoking causes cancer and heart disease? Who cares that smokers drive up the cost of health care for everybody else? And how dare anyone (especially the government) air commercials showing the effects of puffing tobacco: smokers talking through holes in their throats, amputees, women’s faces that look like they were run over by a bus, toothless men, and babies in intensive care because their mothers smoked during pregnancy.

If smokers are comfortable with themselves, why should we be concerned? After all, it’s not how they look on the outside that matters – shame on us for being so prejudicial – but what’s on the inside.

Right?

Wrong.

Most people would vehemently disagree with the above, and justifiably so. Since smoking is unhealthy, the shock-and-awe campaigns aimed at reducing it and preventing young people from trying it are widely accepted. And they are, unquestionably, effective.

“Smokers have told us these ads help them quit by showing what it’s like to live every day with disability and disfigurement from smoking,” said Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers For Disease Control. Despite declines in smoking, however, the CDC says the campaign is still needed, as 18 percent of adults still smoke cigarettes and 21 percent use a tobacco product every day.

Hmmm. Something doesn’t taste right. Let’s review:

An ad campaign employing heavy use of shame, aimed at reducing the number of people engaged in this unhealthy lifestyle choice, is perfectly fine.

But swap out “smoking” for “obesity,” and you get the opposite response: a massive firestorm from America’s overweight as they circle the food wagons, labeling any such effort as ignorant, insensitive, discriminatory, sexist, bigoted, counter-productive, and, of course, sizeist (love that one!).

Most baffling, they object despite overwhelming evidence that shame campaigns work. In the 1970’s, over 40 percent of American adults smoked. Yet the more anti-smoking campaigns became in vogue, the more smoking rates dropped. Now, fewer than one in five smoke.

Tough as this is to stomach, the number of overweight adults has ballooned, doubling since the 1970’s (also doubling among children, and tripling among adolescents).

Despite the vitriolic protests from the overweight “I’m-offended-by-everything” class who cries foul anytime someone calls out their lifestyle, they’re wrong. They can’t have their cake and eat it, too, approving shame so long as it doesn’t apply to them. The statistics speak for themselves.

Shame works. And it’s time for them to chew the fat on that concept.

• • •

The latest episode in America’s Fat Wars is a Change.org petition that takes big offense to Old Navy (owned by The Gap) selling women’s plus-size jeans for more money than men’s plus sizes. It is a story that has gotten huge headlines, but unfortunately has been weighted down by extraneous issues.

First, to Old Navy’s credit, the company is standing its ground – a rarity given that corporate courage is in thin supply. Old Navy explained that it utilizes more resources when designing and manufacturing women’s plus-size jeans, as its fashion experts craft them to be more flattering. Since men care significantly less about such things, their plus-size jeans are an easier design, and thus less expensive.

But the petition organizer, seemingly ignorant of the reality called “business,” called Old Navy’s pricing model “sexist” and “sizeist.”

Sexist? Not a chance. Sizest? Absolutely. And that’s the way it should be. For the 99 percent of overweight people who aren’t fat due to a thyroid condition (though you’d think that’s the cause of fatness for almost everyone), that’s the price you pay when you indulge in an unhealthy lifestyle. To think you’re entitled to being treated like those of normal weight is both naïve and obnoxious.

Here’s food for thought on combatting obesity:

1. The world doesn’t revolve around the obese, so they need to stop throwing their weight around and bullying those who take issue with their sense of entitlement. It’s simple: if you don’t like how Old Navy does things, don’t buy their jeans. Same goes for patronizing the other companies eaten alive by the obese crowd: Victoria’s Secret for using thin models (hello? It’s a lingerie company!), Wal-Mart for its fat-girl Halloween costume, and the Carrot Fit app that uses tongue-in-cheek insults to motivate the user to lose weight, to name a few. The beauty of America is that everyone, even the waistline-challenged community, has the freedom to choose.

The biggest irony is that those most opposed to “shaming” are actually using it against the companies with whom they disagree.

2. Stop blubbering that shaming should not be part of the discussion. It should unequivocally be on the table, and those opposed, rather than simply hurling insults, would serve themselves better by having a rational conversation. If either side has a thin skin, the problem will only grow.

3. It’s not just smoking where shame works. Shaming those who used drugs, shoplifted, got convicted of DUI, and even got detention at school, have had considerable success. Why then are so many ducking the obesity issue by ranting about bullying, hurt feelings, sexism and sizeism? Here’s a novel idea: let’s focus on the actual problem, not irrelevant tangents.

4. Some critics claim shaming only makes a situation worse. If we’re going to indulge that thought, there must at least be a morsel of evidence that something else is better. So what is it? Is it positive reinforcement? More education? Counseling? Well, they’ve all been tried (typically in the absence of shame), and, no surprise, they’re not working. So given that the problem is, in fact, growing, doesn’t common sense tell us we need to try something else?

5. The problem with the anti-shaming movement is that it cracks open the door to government intrusion. How soon until legislation is introduced banning companies from charging different rates for what a bureaucrat sees as “the same thing?” How long until venues are required to widen their seats, and airlines are told they cannot charge obese people for two tickets even though their girth disenfranchises other passengers? How long until the obese movement tries to become a protected class under federal law?

• • •

The real issue is how to gnaw away at obesity (it accounts for over 20 percent of health-care spending) and the correlating rise in diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Insurance premiums keep increasing to subsidize the obese, and worker productivity is down. Most alarming, America’s youth are being desensitized to obesity and its negative effects. In a “do-whatever-makes-you-feel-good” society, that’s a dangerous recipe. The way to change that “fatitude” is not through government mandates, nor a “pie-in-the-sky, all-will-be-OK” mentality.

There’s too much at stake not to lighten America’s load. It’s time we tip the scales against obesity by embracing shame.

Fat Shaming Is OK As Smoker Shaming

By Chris Freind

On Jan. 28, 1986, seven Challenger astronauts “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.” But then — tragedy. For the first time, America had lost astronauts in flight.

President Reagan captured the moment:

The astronauts “had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. We’ve grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we’ve only just begun. We’re still pioneers. … painful things like this happen. It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery … part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.”

But almost 30 years later, has America followed them? Has our nation taken manned space flight and exploration to the next level?

The answer is a resounding “no.” It’s time we change that.

“From out there on the Moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.’” — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut

Once upon a time, America’s leaders articulated bold visions for aggressive space programs, making them pillars of their administrations. From Kennedy to Reagan, that leadership captivated Americans and unified a nation.

We charged into the unknown, a country driven to put America on top in the space race, and in doing so, become part of the most exciting time in all of civilization. Our explorers opened up the final frontier, an astounding achievement that taught humankind that no dreams were too big, and that people could aspire to do things greater than themselves. “The sky is the limit” spirit literally became true.

Undisputed American leadership was as ambitious as it was purpose-driven, the result of generations inspired to study math and science like never before, all for the opportunity to do things no one else had ever done — to be on the cutting edge of not just technology, but humanity.

But somewhere along the way, we lost that indomitable spirit.

Despite walking on the moon a mere 66 years after the Wright brothers’ first flight, we haven’t been back in over four decades. Dark side of the moon? Unexplored. Manned missions to Mars and Jupiter’s moons, which hold the promise of life? Off the table. And it’s not for lack of money, as we spend trillions on everything else under the sun, no pun intended.

NASA proudly claims it will return to the moon in 2020, but that begs the question: Why will it take six more years to go back to a place that where we landed a half-century prior? That’s not progress, but failure. The fact that NASA doesn’t know the difference shows that it’s run by space cadets.

Most appalling, America can no longer transport astronauts into space, an unfathomable lack of foresight.

Instead, we are forced to call on the Russians — the same people with whom we are at serious odds. So to access the International Space Station (which we constructed and put into orbit), we must rely on the country we vanquished in the space race.

How is that possible? How could we allow so much American ingenuity to become vaporized? How could our best and brightest kill the Shuttle with no replacement?

And a more down-to-earth question: How does a parent answer a starry-eyed child mesmerized by the lure of outer space who asks, “Dad, how do we get astronauts into space?”

“Well, we put our space ships into museums, so now we have to hitch a ride with the Russians. They used to be our enemy.”

If America’s space situation doesn’t lend itself to the euphemism of a deep space probe getting stuck in Uranus, nothing does.

Neither Party is prioritizing the immense commercial, science and security benefits of a space program, let alone realizing its ability to instill national pride. Instead, the cancer of partisan politics eats away at The Dream, as space initiatives get defunded in favor of valueless pork projects or simply because members of the opposite Party supported them.

With that lack of leadership, where will America’s space program find hope?

Hollywood, of course.

The Science Channel has just kicked off its “Space Week” with great fanfare, airing highly rated programs on all aspects of space, sparking the allure of the unknown to a whole new generation.

Tinseltown, the most influential marketing machine in the universe, continues to ignite people’s fascination with outer space. Iconic films like “Star Wars”, “Star Trek”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “2001, A Space Odyssey” all achieved cult status and continue to be immensely popular.

Dramas such as “Apollo 13” and “From The Earth To The Moon” captured the hearts and minds of untold millions. And recent films continue to stoke that passion. ‘Gravity’ blasted off at the box office last year, just like the much-hyped “Interstellar” is now poised to do. These productions are wildly popular because audiences believe addressing eternal questions — Where did we come from? Are we alone? What’s out there? — is a crucial aspect of being human.

Hollywood reflects America, at least in this case. Given the public’s demand to once again push the space envelope, Washington should listen.

“The possibilities are limited only by our imagination and determination, and not by the physics.”

— NASA Geologist Michael Duke.

One of the answers to getting Americans in space again is the private sector. Visionaries like Elon Musk (SpaceX), and Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic) are charting new paths into space, adamant that their out-of-this-world dreams will be realized. Their place is an important one.

But let’s face it. We still need America’s resources to accomplish the biggest, most ambitious projects. And for that to occur, our leaders need to understand that space is, and always should be, a priority.

Those who lived through the space race in the ’50s and ’60s will mistily recount how America was united while launching its boys into the great unknown. Were there political disagreements? Of course, but reaching for the stars made folks realize that they could rise above petty arguments and work together for the greater good.

Pushing the limits of human ability and venturing into what was literally a dream for 50,000 years’ of humankind gave Americans the justifiable pride that they were indeed special — and that they weren’t just traveling through history, but making it.

Defying gravity and making science fiction come true have been uniquely American traits. It’s time for America to break free of its self-imposed black hole and once again claim the space leadership mantle that it not just owned, but invented.

So let’s fire up the engines and blast off while remembering President Reagan’s famous words: “America has always been greatest when we dared to be great … We can follow our dreams to the distant stars.”

Shoot For The Stars Again

Shoot For The Stars Again

Shoot For The Stars Again