TV News Ignores Iranian Election Protests

I’ve been following the Iranian post-election protests and riots via social networking sites like YouTube, Twitter and others. Last night while the streets of Tehran were filled with people chanting “Death to the Dictator!” after a clear case of election tampering, CNN was running a fluff piece about whether or not Obama is more popular than effective. Los Angeles based TV news programs talked about illegal aliens working at a car wash, a newsworthy discovery on par with finding tools in a hardware store. FoxNews ran a story about a peeved Sarah Palin. A continuous scan through all available satellite TV news channels revealed similar drivel, with nothing of substance about Iran.

I find this disconcerting given Iran’s important role in the Middle East, their efforts to become a nuclear power and their influence on international policy. Iran is one of the world’s most powerful theocracies and their government has more or less been an enemy of the United States for decades. When their people protested a rigged election, did battle with police and chanted “We want freedom!” in the streets they were mostly ignored by American news networks. This lack of coverage is even more disappointing now that the Iranian election protests have spilled over into large American and European cities.

I realize that there are logistic difficulties in placing reporters inside of a nation that is hostile to foreign press, but this didn’t entirely stop the BBC. Their reporters managed to capture video footage of the protests and were even briefly arrested while reporting on this story. They managed to get enough footage out of the country that Iran has since been actively jamming the BBC communications satellite.

CNN is a very active user of the Twitter microblogging service and used to seem savvy about social media. They were one of the first Twitter users to achieve over a million followers and at one point had 45 official twitter accounts. Why did they not improve their coverage after being twittered with thousands of requests for this? At the very least they could have put a political analyst in front of the camera to discuss what was happening. For many hours, the 2nd most popular trending topic on Twitter.com was #IranElection and the 3rd most popular was #CNNFail. I am surprised that an event of global significance combined with this much social media outrage wasn’t enough to motivate them to cover the story.

The more that I use the internet, the less use I have for main stream media and entertainment. I found dozens of videos on YouTube covering the Iranian riots while they were actually happening. There were hundreds of photographs of the riots on web sites like Flickr. I even found live clandestine coverage on twitter purportedly from a protesting Iranian student as police assaulted a university. I’m beginning to think that traditional news media outlets no longer have much to offer. They are slow, unwieldy and subject to the bias of advertisers and network executives. Television news networks often worry so much about ratings that they focus on entertainment as often as information. "News" stories about “American Idol”, “24” and Obama going on a date with his wife get nearly as much coverage as events of global significance. Once upon a time they may have cared about facts and integrity, but stories like the Dan Rather incident have shown us that their slowness is not caused by diligent fact checking.

If traditional media networks do not find a way to more effectively leverage emerging internet technologies they will soon find themselves without viewers and sponsors.

UPDATE:
CNN's coverage has improved today and they even acknowledged the criticism they have been receiving from the internet/Twitter. Ironically, #CNNFail is still in the top ten list of trending topics on Twitter, and comments there indicate twitterers are either too busy watching the internet to notice CNN's improved coverage or are still angry that it took them so long to start covering this issue.

3 Minute History of American Warfare

Maps Of War has a brief animated list of the various wars that the United States of America has been involved in. It zooms to areas of conflict on a map, shows the number of American deaths from that war, and then attributes those deaths to the political party that was in charge at the time the war began. At the end, you can compare which political party was responsible for leading us into conflicts that resulted in the most American deaths.

Click on the title link and then click "Play" when the map finishes loading.

Note:
I have not verified the accuracy of each piece of information presented in this animation.

How the U.S. Acquired the SW from Mexico: #1

The supporters of Mexican illegal aliens often like to claim “We were here first” as justification for ignoring U.S. immigration laws and illegally entering our country. In truth, they were not here first, or they would not have needed to cross the border to get here. Interestingly, even their ancestors were not here first. Here’s a brief history of who was here first and how this region came to be part of the United States of America. For the sake of brevity, this article will focus on Texas (the first area to fall under American control), and future articles will cover the other areas.

This map, courtesy of the Smithsonian, shows the portion of the United States that was originally claimed by Mexico:

Note that the current U.S. states of California, Nevada Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are fully contained in this area, along with bits of other states.

In the late 1600’s, what is modern day Texas was mostly populated by Apaches, Comanches and other Native American tribes. Those few Spanish settlements that were attempted in this region generally failed, or barely managed to survive. Over the next 100 years or so, Spain gradually established isolated footholds and tiny communities in the area, but did little to physically "possess" this area other than by drawing lines on maps.

In 1821, American Moses Austin received a colonization grant from the Spanish authorities in San Antonio. His son, with legal permission from Spain, brought in hundreds of American families to form what is now Austin, Texas. In this same year, Mexico finally won it’s independence from Spain, and assumed nominal control of this region after having defeated Spain. They were impressed with Austin’s success and prosperity and offered huge tracts of land to other American promoters with the caveat that the settlers they import must become Catholic.

By 1830, legal American immigrants greatly outnumbered Spanish/Mexican immigrants. This worried Mexico, and Mexican troops were sent in to patrol the border, prevent more American immigrants from coming, and levy taxes against the legal and invited American settlers. The people of Texas chafed under these restrictions, and when General Antonio López de Santa Anna declared himself dictator, Texas petitioned for independent statehood (i.e. they wanted to become a separate Mexican state to gain more autonomy rather than remain a part of the Mexican state of Coahuila; they weren’t trying to leave Mexico altogether). Santa Anna responded by imprisoning the petitioner (Austin) for 18 months.

In 1835 Mexico tried to disarm the American settlers of Texas. This was the last straw for the American Texans, and they promptly and forcibly expelled the Mexican Army and declared their independence. Santa Ana led troops back into Texas in an attempt to retake it, and was eventually captured by American/Texans and was then forced to acknowledge Texas as an independent entity.

Texas then asked to become a member state in the United States of America. Texas was admitted into the U.S.A. in 1845.

There a several very important lessons here:

1. The first people here were sparse Native American Tribes, though Spain eventually claimed to posses this land
   
2. Spain and later Mexico Invited U.S. citizens to settle Texas, who established the first large scale semi-modern cities
3. Mexico REQUIRED American settlers to assimilate by forcing them to convert to Catholicism. (Imagine what would happen if the U.S. tried to tell Mexican immigrants they must convert to Protestantism or some other non-Catholic faith!)
4. When Mexico felt that too many American immigrants were entering Texas, they responded by using the military to close the border (something Mexico is vehemently against us doing to keep out illegal Mexican immigrants)
5. The first large settlement to thrive in Texas were American
6. The mostly-American Texas seceded from Mexico AFTER being cutoff by the Mexican Army, AFTER increased taxation by the Mexican government, AFTER Santa Anna jailed their most prominent resident and AFTER the Mexican Army tried to render them helpless by disarming them.

Happy Cinco De Mayo!

Although many people think Cinco De Mayo is Mexico's Independence Day, it actually commemorates Mexico defeating the French at the Battle Of Puebla on May 5, 1862. In short, the Mexican government was just as inept with money then as they are now, and they defaulted on loans to various foreign countries. France, never one to pass up a chance for defeat, attacked Mexico in retaliation for them defaulting on a loan. As with most French wars, France suffered a major defeat and this defeat led to the Cinco De Mayo Holiday.

Given Mexico's success at beating the French and in overthrowing their own government during the Mexican revolution, one can only hope that the people of Mexico might one day gain the courage to rise up and overthrow their corrupt and incompetent government. Perhaps if they start over once again, they will finally manage to fix their economy and make their country a place where all of their people can make a decent wage and receive a good education so that they no longer need to illegally sneak into our country and cause problems for the United States of America.

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

The V for Vendetta movie reminded me of some of the phrases in our Declaration of Independence. Below is an excerpt from that document, and phrases in bold are ones that I felt particularly fitting to both the movie and our current political climate in which politicians are pursuing security before freedom.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Happy Independence Day!

No, this isn't a mistake. On July 2, 1776 the Continental Congress passed the first part of the Lee Resolution. Here's a quote:

"Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Although the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th was a momentous and laudable occasion, it was actually a list of reasons WHY we had already decided to become independent two days earlier.

Here are some more links about the Lee Resolution.

We Are a Republic, Not a Pure Democracy!


Buy this bumper sticker here.


I suspect that most Americans do not realize that our nation is a Republic and not a true Democracy. This is a critical distinction because a Republic, unlike a Democracy, allows for the rights of individuals.

Defining Democracy:

A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules...A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy")

Defining a Republic:

A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation...a republic is rule by law.

Our founding fathers created our nation specifically as a Republic and not as a pure democracy. When you say the pledge of allegiance, you say "and to the Republic for which it stands". The founding fathers took great pains to ensure that our nation would not be subject to "mobocracy" and that the minority would not be subject to the tyranny of the majority.

Here's a harsh example of pure democracy in action:
Imagine a time in which male voters slightly outnumber female voters. Imagine that these men are brutes, and decide they should be able to have sexual congress with any woman they like. They put this issue to the vote, and 50.01% of the voters make this the law of the land. From that day on, the crime of rape would cease to exist as the majority voted that woman MUST provide sex for any man that demands it. Since all power in a pure democracy lies in the hands of the majority, the women would have no legal power to resist until such time that enough people vote to overturn the law. This is the very embodiment of "Might Makes Right" and in this case "Might" is defined by mere numerical superiority.

This sort of thing cannot happen under our Republican form of government, because we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that protects the rights of the individuals from both the tyranny of government and the tyranny of the majority. If someone tried to pass such a law under our Republic, the Supreme Court would simply strike it down as unconstitutional.

The reason I bring up this subject is that people must realize that we are a limited constitutional Republic and all of us have rights under that form of government. The Constitution and all of its amendments defines the powers of our government. They clearly spell out a series of checks and balances designed to limit the power of government. Voters elect people to office who take positions within the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. The people who make laws in the Legislative branch are not empowered to enforce them. The Executive branch that enforces the law is not permitted to create laws. The Judicial branch that makes rulings on law is neither allowed to create laws nor enforce them.

I ask that you consider our Republican form of government the next time you are offered the choice to take away the rights of a member of the minority. Each time you help take something away from a minority you are in effect weakening our Republic and chipping away at the concept of individual rights and liberty. The time will come when the majority doesn't like something about you and the only thing that will stand between you and the tyranny of the majority is whether or not our nation remains a limited constitutional Republic.

Here are some issues to think about:

• Should a Republic have restricted "car pool" lanes on publicly funded roads that only certain types of vehicles or a minimum number of people can use?
• Should a Republic decide what consenting adults can do in their bedrooms?
• Should a Republic be able to monitor the communication, purchases, library usage, movie rental and travel patterns of people based on the mere suspicion of terrorism?
• Should a Republic be deciding if terminally ill people have the right to escape their pain and suffering via medically assisted suicide?
• Should a Republic decide if people should be allowed the means to defend themselves against harm while they lawfully pursue life, liberty and happiness?
• Should a Republic decide what food and drugs should be consumed and tax or outlaw those things that it deems harmful to the individual users?
• Should a Republic decide if an adult is allowed to offer sexual gratification in exchange for money, goods or services?
• Should a Republic decide which religions are promoted and tolerated by the government and which are not worthy of recognition or support?

Keep in mind that if you answered yes to any of the above questions, you are saying that the government should forcibly take money away from all citizens and use it to force your beliefs on others who disagree with you.

Our constitutionally limited Republic is supposed to ensure that individuals have freedom and that this freedom is never subverted under the guise of "common good". As long as individuals are not demonstrably harming others, the government should leave them alone. It should not be the business of government to protect people from their own choices and no emergency should ever be deemed great enough to allow our government to act outside of the strict limitations of our Constitution.