Preparing kids for the real world

In my Denver Post column today, I write about a growing practice among school administrators: the confiscating of student cell phones and reading of all internal phone messages – many of them sent outside of school hours – in an effort to unearth “incriminating” evidence. Often, the text messages are printed up and placed in the student’s permanent record. As a parent, I find such investigations appalling. And according to some, it’s also illegal.

I asked Mark Silverstein, legal director of ACLU of Colorado, why rummaging through text messages is any different than, say, rummaging through notebooks or intercepting notes between students?

“That is a completely different type of intrusion,” he contends. “The thing about searching cellphones is that it divulges all kinds of personal information. It’s one thing to search pockets or backpacks, if an administrator has a reasonable suspicion that a student is smoking. But if they fail to turn up anything, they don’t perform a strip search; it’s unreasonable. So is this.”

Silverstein points out that a cellphone could potentially hold text messages with sensitive personal information, not only about the student, but also about friends and family. He says there is no way to limit a search of text messages to include only areas relevant to the suspected violation of school policy.

Here is the letter from the ACLU on the matter.

Here is the response from the school district.

Prohibition is near

The Belmont City Council in California has adopted a landmark ordinance “regulating secondhand smoke in the city.” In essence it is prohibition for many people, and for the first time it really has nothing to do specious health arguments.

Thought to be the first of its kind in California, the ordinance declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance and extends the city’s current smoking ban to include multi-unit, multi-story residences.

And it is a landmark case for a multitude of reasons. By declaring secondhand smoke a “public nuisance” — like public urination, for instance — rather than having to peddle nonsense about the dangers of outdoor secondhand smoke, nannies can now ban smoking almost completely. Smoking on city streets and sidewalks will be permitted except in the location of city-sponsored events or in close proximity to prohibited areas — which I suspect is nearly everywhere.

By extending the city’s smoking ban to include all “multi-unit, multi-story residences,” the city has prohibited apartment- and condo-dwelling smokers the right to enjoy a legal substance anywhere at all – even if the owner or renter of the condo has no problem with the habit. Smokers can still smoke in their own free-standing homes and backyards. But how long before some do-gooder claims s/he can smell this public nuisance from their neighbors’ backyards? And what stops a citizen from complaing about this nuisance anywhere?

So what began, years ago, as supposed worker protections from the dangers of secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants is now a complete assault on choice and property rights in this California town. It is prohibition plain and simple. And it is coming to a town near you.

“The invasion of the Mary Poppinses”

Jeremy Lott was kind enough to interview me for a Politico piece titled: “The invasion of the Mary Poppinses”:

Whether or not one agrees with Harsanyi, he has tapped into something many Americans feel on a gut level. People consistently tell pollsters that government — at the federal, state and local levels — is too intrusive, tries to legislate too much and is too willing to meddle where it isn’t wanted and doesn’t belong.

“moral busybodies and nitpicking maternalists”

Here’s an interview about Nanny State with Bill Steigerwald at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. My answers are somewhat fuzzy in this one, though I think I touch on all the points that need touching on.

Q: Who’s responsible for this Nanny State — liberals, conservatives, Jane Fonda, Jerry Falwell?
A: All of the above. I would say that the left typically believes that government can make us better people and protect us from all the vagaries of life. On the right, at least rhetorically, we hear a lot about individual freedom. But in the past few years, and maybe it’s compassionate conservatism, we see the Republican Party coddling adults as well and buying into the Nanny State. It’s still not as bad as the liberals, but bad enough. But there are many different kinds of people involved in the Nanny State and it’s driven by all kinds of concerns — hyper-risk-aversion and political correctness are also part of it. It’s not like you can pin it down to one or two types of people. It’s a bunch of people.

Touchy in Alabama

In 1998, the Alabama legislature passed a ban on sexual devices  — added at the last minute to a wide-ranging obscenity law. This week a federal judge is likely to lift the injunction that has prevented this law from being enforced since it was passed.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Williams v. Alabama, wherein a woman named Sherri Williams challenged the constitutionality of the state law banning the sale of devices that were meant only to stimulate human genitals. Now, obviously, this is a quasi-family friendly blog, but clearly, finding objects to excite the genitals with is not one of the more difficult tasks a person will encounter.

The law was originally intended to shut down certain adult establishments, like strip clubs, so that children wouldn’t have to walk past them on the way to malt shops and sock hops. The sex-toy thing got thrown in so minors wouldn’t be exposed to adult retail shops either, and that’s the part that got national attention. No one outside the local community cares if a strip club gets shut down; start telling women they can’t buy vibrators, and the angry murmurs begin

No dildos in Alabama, but incestuous marriage, well, according to this link … Why not?

Section 30-1-3 The issue of any incestuous marriage, before the same is annulled, shall not be deemed illegitimate.(Code 1852, §1945; Code 1867, §2334; Code 1876, §2673; Code 1886, §2310; Code 1896, §2840; Code 1907, §4880; Code 1923, §8994; Code 1940, T. 34, §3.)

Gross.

Coming Events

For those the Denver area, I’ll be speaking three times in the coming weeks about Nanny State and personal freedom. The events are put on in conjuction with the national Big Read program celebrating Ray Bradbury’s classic book Fahrenheit 451.

Oct. 10 from 7 to 8:30 at the Bemis Library
Oct. 21 from 3 to 4:30 at the Koelbel Library
Oct. 24 from 7 to 8:30 at Aurora Central Library

Seen Your Video

The guys on the First Team of the Northern Alliance Radio Network are offically my favorite radio hosts. Sure, they’re smart and funny, but that’s not it. They use Replacements bumper music.

Replacements: Nowhere is My Home >>>PLAY>>> 

The War on Halloween

My column today touches on something dear to me.

The two most devastating words any red-blooded American kid is likely to hear are “Fall Festival.”

It can mean only one thing: The War on Halloween is once again upon us.

No, the War on Halloween won’t induce the same zealous indignation that, say, the War on Christmas can. For me, though, it’s far worse.

We’re still weeks from this glorious pagan celebration, but you can already hear the sound of the pinheads sucking the fun out of life.

Recently, Halloween celebrations were banned at Kohl Elementary School in Westminster. The story garnered national attention after the principal sent home a newsletter alerting parents that their children’s yearly Halloween party would be replaced by a - gulp - fall celebration.

Costumes? Forget it.

This is bad news?

Here’s a story suggesting Americans with HIV are getting dangerously fat. But of course, there are no hard statistics to back the claim that the extra weight is killing anyone — at least none that I could find. As we all know, early in the AIDS epidemic patients would lose tremendous amounts of weight. This was dangerous. Now, we’re told, like other Americans …

“Today, they are facing the opposite problem. Many who have HIV, but not full-blown AIDS, are struggling with obesity, which has overtaken “wasting syndrome” as the top concern.”

I would say this news is, on some level, pretty great. First of all, I suspect, as with other obesity studies brought by the CDC the threat is widely overblown. If the obesity rates among HIV patients — and, as I go into more deeply in my book, the BMI numbers employed to categorize obesity can be absurd — parallel the rest of the country, we should be celebrating. What was once a death sentence is now a matter of munching on some vegetables.

Ah, but the victims. The article goes on to state that “The problem is more evident in those who are poor, because they more often eat junk food and don’t have money to join a gym.” The CDC, as it is prone to do, is creating victims again. Certainly, obesity is always more problematic in low-income communities. So the CDC should let everyone know healthier foods can easily be purchased for the same price as junk food. And, hey, you don’t need a gym to take a walk or jog every day.

Our new national hobby

Clearly we have a growing preposterous trend on our hands: officials condemning free speech. Sort of makes sense, actually. On the heels of the Rush Limbaugh (I haven’t seen his original comments in context yet nor does it matter)/MoveOn.org, nonsense, I see that San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval of Board of Supervisors has been pushing a resolution condemning talk-show host Michael Savage for “hate speech.”

You know, at least this keeps third-rate bureaucrats busy doing something useless.

The few times I’ve listened to Savage, I’ve found myself asking if this guy was for real. I learned nothing and enjoyed nothing. He’s angry. Yes, he’s hateful. He talks about the Malthusian End of Days, conspiracy theories and holds ridiculously immature views regarding the world without a shred of humor or self-awareness.

So you know what? I stopped listening. That’s what Americans used to do when they found something unpalatable, or more to point in this case, painfully unentertaining.

Yet, this resolution was the board’s second attempt to condemn Savage (curiously enough, his show emanates from San Francisco) specifically for his yammering about illegal aliens. The only thing that stops resolution from passing is a San Franciscan by the name of Ed Jew (an American-Asian) vetoes the vote. Not only that, but Jew had the stones to stand up and defend Savage’s First Amendment right to free expression. If only such a person existed in Washington DC — on either side – we’d all be better off.

Jew said, “For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments.” 
How refreshing to hear such an obvious point said in public.

So then …

Sandoval responded with a personal challenge to Jew.

“If this commentary was directed at the Chinese-American or the Asian community, you would not be resorting to this rigid formalism on your part,” he said.

Michael Savage is offensive. A elected government official referring to deference of the First Amendment as “rigid formalism” is far more offensive. I have no idea if Jew would adhere to ideological and political consistency if his own ethnicity were attacked daily on the radio. But I do know Sandoval’s comment gives us a peek into the mindset of many officials these days. To them, freedom is no longer a priority. Not if it offends them.