[iTunes] [Zune] [Email Updates] [RSS]

[iTunes] [Zune] [Email Updates] [RSS]

[iTunes] [Zune] [Email Updates] [RSS]

[iTunes] [Zune] [Email Updates] [RSS]

Slater declined to talk about the confrontation a passenger that prompted his dramatic down-the-chute departure Monday.

He plans to hire a new lawyer and make some kind of announcement soon.

“A lot of my life is out of my hands right now,” he said as he got into a Jeep with his boyfriend. “There’s a lot to sort out in a fairly quick time frame.”

Slater, who lives in Queens, spent the night in an Upper East Side apartment after being bailed out of jail.

NBC legal eagle Dan Abrams says he won’t serve any jail time:

“ABRAMS: I think it’s unlikely. I think it’s almost certain they’ll reach a deal here. I mean, the prosecutors are saying this is serious and, as a legal matter, it is serious, but there’s also no way they want this case to go to trial.
VIEIRA: Because of all the public support that he’s got?
ABRAMS: Yeah, the public support. You know, can you imagine the jury selection on this case? ‘Have you ever been on an airplane where you’ve been frustrated and angry? Have you ever wanted to punch your boss?’ You can imagine what would happen.
VIEIRA: There’s not a jury that would convict him.
ABRAMS: That’s the point, isn’t it? That the law becomes almost secondary on a story like this.”

Abrams is dead right. But why should the law become secondary in any case? Steven Slater was a flight attendant; his job was to deal with passengers and grit his teeth while the inevitable douche bag whined about overhead bin space or a weak martini or whatever. If Slater was a passenger on that plane, he’d be hit with the book. Why should a flight attendant be treated any differently?

It seems the entire country is looking for this I’m-fed-up-and-I-fucking-quit character at the moment, and that’s fine. But, the man broke a whole boatload of laws and ‘having a bad day’ isn’t an excuse that should work in a court of law. Steven Slater curses out patrons, grabs a pair of beers, hits the emergency chute and runs off the tarmac and we’re debating which actor will play him in the inevitable box office version of this tale? Get real.

You think this guy will avoid jail time?

LOS ANGELES — A Florida man is under arrest for trying to open a cabin door on a Delta Air Lines jetliner that was en route from Los Angeles to Tampa, according to the FBI.

Stanley Dwayne Sheffield, 46, was taken into federal custody after Delta flight 2148 was diverted to Albuquerque, N.M., early Friday morning, said FBI Supervisory Special Agent Darrin Jones of the Albuquerque FBI office.

Passengers on the flight say Sheffield, who was seated in first class, started to cause a disturbance, made threats and became disruptive about an hour and a half into the flight.

How about this guy?:

Oregon (Reuters) – An unruly passenger aboard a Hawaii-bound airliner on Wednesday prompted the pilot to return the plane to Portland, Oregon, escorted by two military fighter jets, in the latest of several U.S. aviation security scares this week.

The Hawaiian Airlines jet en route to Maui’s Kahului Airport turned back because of “a suspicious passenger who made threatening remarks and refused to store his carry-on bag,” said Suzanne Trevino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Transportation Security Administration.

No. They’ll both serve jail time. As will this guy, this gentleman and this nutcase. Why should Steven Slater’s fate be so different? They all lost their cool. They all went berserk. They should all suffer the consequences.

Look, I’ve bitched about the carry-on policies of airlines for the past 8 months non-stop, you know this. But if anyone had the right to go on a rant here, it was probably the guy who pissed off Slater in the first place. It’s the folks who purchase airline tickets only to be inconvenienced by poorly enforced, nonsensical baggage policies, not the airline employees who have a right to bitch here. Slater inconvenienced those folks even further by throwing a temper tantrum that sent a wave of chaos through that JetBlue aircraft.

So, enough with the fluff pieces. Enough with the hero-status bullshit. Steven Slater is no folk hero. He doesn’t represent some fantasy, long sought after by every working American, to flee work in a fit of rage. The man is clearly an asshole who lost his temper and his mind, however briefly, simultaneously.

As the TMZ cameras close in on a man clearly enjoying newfound fame, let’s try to be a bit more choosy when it comes to picking our folk heroes, OK?

BEIRUT — The United Nations set up a tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 killing of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri in an effort to deter future violence in Lebanon. But many in the country now fear indictments in the case could trigger a new political crisis or even sectarian bloodshed.

It’s clear that Hezbollah expects the U.N. to point fingers at several figureheads and, in an attempt to both discredit the pending indictments and threaten Lebanon simultaneously, the pot stirring is in full view.

Hezbollah’s leaders have pressured the Lebanese government to end its cooperation with U.N. investigators and have threatened consequences if it doesn’t. Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader, said naming Hezbollah in the indictments would be enough to trigger a civil war like the one from 1975 to 1990.

Don’t think for a second that these threats aren’t working, either. Regional power brokers are attempting to delay release of findings or cancel it entirely. So, the citizens and politicians of Lebanon find themselves at a crossroads. Do you give in to the bullying of a terror obsessed outfit now proven to have been involved in the assassination of an popular former Prime Minister or risk another lengthy civil war sure to tear their fragile nation to threads? The trouble is, even if the Lebanese politicians (those not aligned with Hezbollah, of course) decided to make a move and reject Hezbollah’s demand that they distance themselves from this U.N. report wanted to do something, they couldn’t.

Two years ago, when the government tried to shut down Hezbollah’s vast telecommunications network, Hezbollah militiamen took over Beirut within 24 hours, embarrassing the Lebanese army and demonstrating Hezbollah’s ability to overpower Hariri and his pro-democracy supporters at will.

In response, Hariri agreed to give Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the United States and Israel, and its allies enough cabinet seats to block any major decision. Hezbollah now controls several major posts, including the foreign ministry.

This should be interesting to watch…

Exit Question: Did they already cave?

Six years ago, hip hop icon Wyclef Jean released a soulful tune called “President,” in which he fantasized about what it would be like to lead a country.

That fantasy may come closer to reality when the Haitian-American recording artist announces exclusively on CNN’s “Larry King Live” that he intends to run for president of Haiti.

Jean, who had been an outspoken proponent for Haiti through his Yele Foundation, told CNN Tuesday that plans to make the major announcement on King’s show Thursday night.

There is no one more beloved and respected in Haiti than Wyclef Jean. At the moment, he’s seen as the rock star that left his birth country and made good in the United States, all the while campaigning for a better life for those he left behind. From the commune of Cité Soleil to the coast of Saint-Marc and beyond, Wyclef has long been a popular figure among the Haitian public.

Haiti’s current President, René Préval, is barred from running for another term and wouldn’t be able to best Jean even if he was able to compete. Wyclef isn’t the only candidate to throw his hat in the ring here, his uncle Raymond Joseph and others are also gearing up for the November election.

Scores of candidates are expected to compete for the presidency in the November contest. Among them is Jean’s uncle Raymond Joseph, who is Haiti’s ambassador in Washington. Other likely candidates include former prime ministers, mayors and another popular Haitian musician, Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly.

Still, none of these candidates has the respect among the Haitian voters that Jean enjoys. And though those that live in the dangerous Cité Soleil have long been supporters (or have been forced to be supporters in many cases) of Aristide, because of their young age, they may be more likely to vote for Jean. One thing is well know inside the borders of Haiti: anyone is better than Préval.

Still, this will be no easy feat for Wyclef Jean. First, is he qualified?

EXCERPT FROM THE HAITIAN CONSTITUTION OF 1987

ARTICLE 135:

To be elected President of the Republic of Haiti, a candidate must:

a. Be a native-born Haitian and never have renounced Haitian nationality;

b. Have attained thirty-five (35) years of age by the election day;

c. Enjoy civil and political rights and never have been sentenced to death, personal restraint or penal servitude or the loss of civil rights for a crime of ordinary law;

d. Be the owner in Haiti of at least one real property and have his habitual residence in the country;

e. Have resided in the country for five (5) consecutive years before the date of the elections;

f. Have been relieved of this responsibilities if he has been handling public funds.

Well, he was born in Haiti and has retained his citizenship there so nationality shouldn’t post a problem. Wyclef’s official age is 37, though his brother claims he’s 40, so he’s certainly old enough. He’s never been sentenced to death and appears to have a fairly clean record in Haiti, so, check. I can’t find any evidence of Jean owning property in Haiti but I’m all but certain that he does. But I wouldn’t consider his residence in Haiti “habitual” and I’m not sure saying he’s “resided” in the country for five consecutive years would be an accurate statement. He’s remained a Haitian citizen, yes. He’s been at least remotely involved in Haitian affairs, sure. But has he really resided in Haiti? I’m not sure.

I’m also well aware that Wyclef carries some baggage into this election. His charity, Yéle Haiti, has been under fire for spending money in conspicuous ways for some time now. Also, a brief scandal erupted when his lavish Miami home was lost to foreclosure proceedings. He’s also seen by some Haitians as a supporter of the U.S.-supported coup that ousted Jean-Bertrand Aristide back in 2004. The fact is, even with this baggage, Wycelf Jean may be the only candidate with enough international gravitas to clean up Haiti.

Still, there aren’t many people who would argue that Jean lacks respect where it counts. He may not regularly hob-nob with the political elites in Haiti (though he does know quite a few) but if he hits the ground in a whirlwind campaign from the slums to the city centers, there aren’t many people who will be able to gin up interest and intrigue like Jean. The Haitian people will see him as a young, exciting candidate looking to pull their country from the abyss.

Let’s just hope he never goes the Duvalier route.

Today, clearly, is no exception:

Just when you thought airlines couldn’t get any stingier, the CEO of Spirit Airlines said he is considering a new fee to talk with a human at the airport.

Yes, the airline that just started charging for carry-on bags might someday add a fee for getting some help from one of its employees, Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza told ABC News.

Baldanza said passengers won’t see this fee “in the very near term.” Or at least not until the airline improves its airport technology.

I get it. On some level it’s ridiculous to pile on dozens of tiny (sometimes hard to detect) price increases instead of just increasing the overall ticket price. To be charged for pillows, headphones, water, food or even bathroom use seems outlandish. But let’s be realistic here, in the overall scheme of things, flying on an airplane is still incredibly cheap when compared to other forms of travel. Hell, car rental companies have been playing this add-a-fee game for ages.

So you think you’ve gotten a great deal on your rental car — but unfortunately, netting that fabulous $19.99-a-day rate doesn’t guarantee you a cheap rental. Instead, you may find the price skyrocketing as your bill is rung up at the rental counter. Sales taxes, airport surcharges, insurance, licensing fees — by the time all the extra charges are added onto your bill, you may find yourself suffering a severe case of sticker shock — and paying almost double that seductive base rate.

That $19.99 per-day fee can jump if you leave the state where you rented the car, if you go over an allotted amount of mileage for the trip or even if you return the car with a smidgen less than a full tank of gas. Dropped the car off at the wrong location on accident? Agencies can charge you as much as $1,500! This fee-crazy mentality spills far beyond car rentals and airlines. Credit cards, concert tickets and damn near anything else you wish to purchase in 2010 tend to be stuffed with all sorts of costs that don’t seem to make sense. Why are the airlines facing the brunt of the criticism here?

The solution to this problem has nothing to do with Congress or Washington D.C. bureaucrats entering the fold. Online travel outlets like Travelocity have stepped up with innovations like TotalPrice, a feature created to tell you the absolute cost of an item or service. This is an interesting element of online travel retail and I think it will develop into something even more powerful over time. With these websites acting as a middle man, you won’t have to worry about guessing the final cost of your airfare, car rental fee or concert ticket. If interest grows, so will competition and many more people will benefit in the long run. This provides a victory much greater than some legislative mandate that would simply force airlines and other retailers to increase the overall cost of services on every consumer rather than those consumers who wish to use the extra, more expensive services these companies offer.

Is it stupid to charge for the use of a restroom on an airplane? Yes. But it’s even more ridiculous to have Congress force that airline to allow passengers to use the restroom for free. And the regulation won’t stop at the bathroom sink.

I have a friend who is flying up to Chicago this weekend. He’s paying a whopping $200 to travel from West Palm Beach, Florida to Chicago, Illinois. That’s 1,129 miles. He’s flying across the country for about $400 less than it would cost him to travel by train (a service that also features hidden fees) and he’ll make it here in less than 4 hours. The train ride would force him to spend about 48 hours on an aged Amtrak with little to do but stare out the window and complain about the noise. Which method of travel would you prefer?

The point is, air travel is still incredibly affordable, hidden fees are not something exclusively related to the airline industry and Congress getting involved will only punish those who enjoy these services for such a low price. I guess that’s several points but you get the drift. So, quit your bitching already and enjoy this amazingly safe, shockingly efficient and more-affordable-than-ever service. If we let the government intervene, we may all have to leave air travel for the glitterati as the hoi polloi seek another way to make it home.

[iTunes] [Zune] [Email Updates] [RSS]

WASHINGTON—Investigators have found concrete evidence linking Pfc. Bradley Manning with the leak of classified Afghanistan war reports, a U.S. defense official said.

A search of the computers used by Pfc. Manning yielded evidence he had downloaded the Afghanistan war logs, which span 2004-2009, the official said. It isn’t clear precisely what that evidence is.

Bradley Manning is just 22-years-old and the evidence is stacked up against him. Sure, he was already under arrest when the documents were released by Wikileaks, but the damage wasn’t truly done until Assange and his ilk placed the Afghanistan war logs online. Manning may have had other reasons for leaking this information but the draw toward Assange and the online hacker culture was both reason for pushing forward and the treadmill to his eventual demise. Because he believed Wikileaks would “protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public,” he sent tens of thousands of documents to Assange. In this case, Wikileaks couldn’t live up to that promise.

My real issue here is that as Julian Assange soaks up the spotlight, seemingly thriving off the attention he has received for leaking information that is far from new, the source that allowed him this attention, this web traffic and this fund-raising opportunity will not be free from punishment. While I believe Assange may have been driven by his anti-war ideology, I think fame is his favorite currency. To get that fame, he cared not who was hurt, stomped or arrested in the process. He wanted an influx of press at any cost.

If Manning is convicted on all charges, he could serve as much as 52 years in prison, virtually the remainder of his life. Because investigators believe Manning may have been responsible for other leaks (the Reykjavik 13 cable), his sentence could be even longer. To put it bluntly, he’s fucked.

I’m not suggesting that Bradley Manning doesn’t deserve to be punished here; he was clearly the responsible party and should face the full force of the law. But it’s quite bizarre to watch folks like Julian Assange bask in the glory as their sources are thrown to the wolves. Assange released the Afghanistan war reports knowing full well the source of the information would be found and prosecuted. He knew that person would pay a hefty price. He didn’t care.

I’ve followed Wikileaks for quite some time and I still see the outlet as an interesting addition to the debate on world policy but we must all view this site for what it truly is: a digital battering ram meant to bring about the downfall of the U.S. in Afghanistan. In fact, much of what Wikileaks has ‘leaked’ to date has been information meant to paint the United States in a negative light. Assange tosses around words like ‘war crimes‘ and provides absolutely no context to the information he spreads online. What Assange does to those governments with which he is at odds is no different than the Breitbart-Sherrod controversy. Except this story will most certainly end with the deaths of many Afghan informants. And even if those exposed informants escape death, Bradley Manning will face punishment back in the U.S..

PHOENIX — Police and protesters are gearing up for Arizona’s new immigration law, which takes effect Thursday.

Officers are getting last-minute training on the law, including how to avoid racial profiling, while preparing for a potential influx of detainees.

In Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He says he has made space in his outdoor jail for an additional 100 people and says he’ll find more room if necessary.

Oh, and about those boycotts…:

Despite the threat of widespread travel boycotts tied to the state’s strict new immigration law, early results for hotels and resorts in metropolitan Phoenix show little evidence of any short-term impact.

Hotel occupancy was up 6.5 percent in May and 10.6 percent in June from a year earlier, outpacing national gains, according to Smith Travel Research. Average room rates were flat on an above-average increase in rooms. Revenue per available room, the most closely watched measure, rose 6.2 percent and 11 percent in May and June, respectively.

This should be an interesting few days… look for one name in particular to dominate the headlines as the deadline approaches: Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A decision on the legality of SB1070 is in the hands of U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton and, though many expect an announcement today, Bolton has said she “feels no obligation to rule before the law goes into effect July 29″. I’m expecting a flood of racial profiling allegations, violent protests and media sob stories about illegal immigrant families separated by the law. Then again, wouldn’t it shock all involved in SB1070 went into effect and nothing happened?

Update: Not so fast – Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law…

A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona’s new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

Here’s what portions of the law have been (at least temporarily) blocked:

• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.

• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers.”

• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)

• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

Game on. Read Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling…

Mullen said the progress since 2007 represented “truly a stunning achievement.”

The United States has about 77,500 soldiers in Iraq but all combat troops are due out by September 1, leaving a training and advisory force of 50,000. And by December 2011, all remaining troops are to leave.

“We’re still on track to reduce the number of troops to 50,000 by the end of August and to have all combat troops out of Iraq by 2011,” said Mullen, who was due to meet the US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno.

So, the withdrawal is on track. But that doesn’t mean that violence has ceased to be a reality of everyday life in Iraq. Here’s today’s McClatchy roundup.

Baghdad

A magnetic bomb that was stuck to a parked car detonated while being defused by a bomb squad, in Salhiyah neighbourhood, central Baghdad, Tuesday, causing no casualties.

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Ghazaliyah neighbourhood, west Baghdad, Tuesday, killing one civilian and injuring two civilians and two policemen.

A suicide bomber driving a car bomb, detonated in front of the offices of a major media outlet, al Arabiya satellite channel, at 9.15 a.m. Monday, killing three of its security guards and a woman worker, and injuring 16 people, including Salam al Zoba’i, former deputy prime minister and MP in the new parliament for Ayad Allawi’s secular Iraqiya bloc (who won by two seats in the March elections), who lives three doors away.

A roadside bomb targeted civilians in Jihad neighbourhood, west Baghdad, at 9 p.m. Monday, injuring two.

Karbala

A car bomb driven by a suicide bomber detonated, late Tuesday, targeting the checkpoint at the southwestern entrance to the city of Karbala targeting pilgrims (headed for the sacred city to commemorate the birth of al Imam al Mahdi) killing at least 20 pilgrims and injuring at least fifty others, said the local government spokesman. Medical officials, however, put casualties at 30 killed and 50 injured.

Nineveh

Armed men threw a home made bomb at a police patrol in Ghazi Street, central Mosul, at 10 a.m. Tuesday, injuring one civilian and one policeman.

Armed men broke into a house in Falah neighbourhood, east Mosul, late Monday, and shot dead two women who lived there.

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Tanak Neighbourhood, central Mosul, late Sunday, killing one policeman and injuring another.

A roadside bomb targeted civilians in Maydan Square in central Mosul, injuring 16.

Armed men carrying pistols fitted with silencers opened fire at a checkpoint in Risala neighbourhood, west Mosul, killing two policemen.

My money says things heat up as the September 1st deadline passes.

We’re not out of the woods desert yet.

COOPER: Joe following some other breaking news for us — thanks — in the “360 News and Business Bulletin.”

Joe, what have you got?

JOHNS: Well, Anderson, late word tonight that Shirley Sherrod, the USDA’s Georgia director of rural development, has resigned after a YouTube video surfaced showing her describing to an NAACP audience how she withheld help to a white farmer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHIRLEY SHERROD, FORMER GEORGIA DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, USDA: But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all of that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: In a statement tonight, Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack said, “There is zero tolerance for discrimination in USDA, and I strongly condemn any acts of discrimination against any person.”

This came just two hours after the first mention of the story on Fox News. Bill O’Reilly, who beat AC 360 to the story, has apologized for his mischaracterization of the speech. While Cooper claims this should all be about “the truth,” he went straight in to blame-mode on Tuesday and hasn’t stopped since. I pointed out several of the myths that have permeated coverage of this story on the radio show Sunday and the lies continue to this very moment. The most frustrating this is, the real story here has nothing to do with Andrew Breitbart or Big Government. The NAACP and the Obama administration pulled the trigger on Sherrod’s firing before checking for context. The media outlets who ran this video (including CNN) should have done the proper fact-checking before airing the video. And, perhaps most egregiously, once Shirley Sherrod’s name was cleared, the story should have evaporated.

And Cooper wasn’t alone…

There was an unhealthy obsession at work here. Political pundits were trying to score political points. Networks were trying to appear less racist than their competitors. Political organizations, like the NAACP who attacked both Sherrod and the reactionary crowd at the event, reacted too swiftly and condemned the USDA employee then turned 180 degrees and began fund-raising in the name of protecting Shirley Sherrod on the NAACP website.

How did the NAACP go from this:

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

…to soliciting funds in the name of defending Sherrod in a matter of days?

Back to Anderson Cooper for the wrap-up; for all the decent reporting Cooper has done, he loves nothing more than to pretend he is the only serious newsperson on the market. This man, who once hosted the ABC TV show ‘The Mole’ wants everyone to take him very, very seriously. Yet, he won’t fess up to making the same mistake he’s bludgeoning others for in this case. The politicization of this entire affair was one of the most shameful moments for modern media in the last decade. With Anderson Cooper and other media stalwarts and pundits looking for a victim, it’s only a matter of time before everyone is throwing the race card at everyone else.

Honestly, it’s just fucking embarrassing.

Yet some people, Mark Halperin for example, still don’t seem to get it:

But the coverage of both sagas — Simpson literally for years and Sherrod for the better part of a week — was insanely overblown. The Sherrod story is a reminder — much like the assault in 2004 on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that the Old Media is often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative New Media.

The Old Media didn’t cover this a stitch before Sherrod was fired. It was the firing that became the story. And if the Old Media is guilty of anything here (and I believe they are) it was using this conservative New Media misfire to point toward their adversaries and say ‘hey, look, they were totally wrong here.’ And so they did, for six fucking days (and counting).

[iTunes] [Zune] [Email Updates] [RSS]

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Collusion, plain and simple. Read the whole thing.

The Daily Caller report shows left-leaning journalists plotting to spike the Reverend Wright story in the heat of the 2008 election. Journalists appear to care more about ‘their team’ winning an election than reporting a completely valid story. When one of their own, George Stephanopoulos, questions Obama on his connections to the pastor, the reporters call him a “disgusting little rat snake.” This team fuses so tightly that to do anything outside of their political paradigm would be an affront to the group, painting dissenters as turncoats. All opposing opinions become dangerous and are to be silenced. It’s a troubling situation that creates an environment where political stagnation takes hold and journalistic integrity is nearly non-existent.

What causes this rift between those with opposing views? Team Dynamics.

When like-minded people form a common bond over politics and create a team, problems quickly surface. The political party system breeds a situation where voters are at odds with one another constantly. This friction spreads far into the personal and private lives of those who join one of the teams. When politics becomes sport, no one wins. Think about this: two ‘teams’ of fellow students participated in an experiment in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University. Later called ‘The Stanford Prison Experiment,’ it didn’t take long for Team Dynamics to take hold and all hell to break loose.

The experiment quickly grew out of hand, and Zimbardo lost control of it. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress progressively led them from rebellion to inhibition. By the experiment’s end, many showed severe emotional disturbances.

After a relatively uneventful first day, a riot broke out on the second day. The guards volunteered to work extra hours and worked together to break the prisoner revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers without supervision from the research staff.

One of the teams is struck by the Lucifer Effect, a term coined by Philip Zimbardo, the professor who conducted this experiment. In the end, students and parents expressed outrage and Zimbardo was an instant legend in academic circles. But in politics, it seems all sides are struck with the Lucifer Effect. Sure, there are hundreds of thousands of people who can remain sane while discussing politics and keep an open mind when digesting news. But those who tend to be the most influential (radio hosts, journalists, pundits, etc.) generally tend to be more radical. This combination of Team Dynamics and the Lucifer Effect creates a poisonous political atmosphere and (as is made clear by the Daily Caller piece) doesn’t exactly foster the most honest debate.

So how do you fix a problem as convoluted as this? Abolish the parties.

Without official political parties, the Team Dynamic would dissolve. If everyone in the United States concurrently registered as an Independent and all politicians followed suit, an every-man-for-himself mentality would permeate the political landscape. Without teams, you’re much less likely to have many of the problems we see today. If you’re honest, you’ll admit there’s been a point in your life where you judged someone solely on their political leanings. Many times, you’ll meet these people and they’ll turn out to be much different than you imagined. Without the political parties, you’re much less likely to judge people in this manner. It also much less likely that partisan attack groups like Media Matters would thrive as they do now. It wouldn’t be perfect but I’d bet the farm it would be more effective than the current political structure.

So, what do you think? You ready to quit the team yet, champ?

Blind passengers are being ordered off buses or refused taxi rides because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their ‘unclean’ guide dogs.

One pensioner, a cancer sufferer, told how had twice been confronted by drivers and asked to get off the bus because of his guide dog, and had also faced hostility at a hospital and in a supermarket over the animal.

Another day, another story of protecting religious identity to infringe on another man’s liberty. This time, Muslim bus drivers in the UK are refusing to allow blind passengers to board with their companion animals. Reason being, the animals are, of course, dogs (viewed by more radical Muslims as ‘impure and unclean‘). To be fair, most mainstream Islamic scholars think this is patently ridiculous and would rather people of their faith accommodate the blind and risk, er, being licked? Still, it’s not just buses these blind folks are being denied entry to, try hailing down a cab in London with your seeing-eye dog and let me know how that goes. But, really, is this actually a problem? Or is it UK press hype?

A few months back, there was a story about a Muslim bus driver who locked all passengers on the bus while he took a prayer break. That story turned out to be nonsense and the Sun had to pay a decent chuck of cash to the target of the tale. So, even though this story is double-sourced and the UK government, blind outreach organizations and others seem to be taking the problem seriously, I’m hesitant to jump into the deep end here. If, in fact, there is a spate of bus drivers refusing to serve blind patrons, the problem should be dealt with swiftly. Under no circumstances should one’s religious preferences or identity allow for a situation in which another person’s liberties are trampled. I just don’t think the severity of the problem is quite as advertised.

These stories may live forever online but they’re not always factual.

[iTunes] [Zune] [Email Updates] [RSS]