A Disciplined Celebrity

Maybe there's still hope for America.

Celebrity headlines are filled with the sad tales of young women who used to be attractive and are now only noted for their friendly encounters with drugs, alcohol, prison, and food (or lack of it).

It's too early to say if 16-year-old Nancy Drew star Emma Roberts, the infamous Julia's niece, will achieve the same popularity status of Lohan or Hilton, but it's not too early to say that if she does, she's got a better chance of surviving with dignity intact.

Why? Parents who aren't afraid to discipline.

She got her cell phone taken away for a week "for talking sassy to her mother." (usatoday.com)

USA Today commenter cambel noted,

thank god her mother is actually disciplining her when she acted like a brat. Sounds like she will turn out ok. If only Lohans mother had tried that once in a while her daughter wouldn't have turned into a coked-out unemployable laughingstock."

Mandy Moore is strikingly absent from the celebrity antics of her peers, although since she accidentally became the poster girl for young Christian women everywhere after A Walk to Remember, followed by her large role in the brilliant but blasphemous comedy Saved, it's hard to say where she now stands in the opinion of the public eye. (How many people will buy her new album that releases Tuesday? How many people even know that she's still a recording artist?)

But if it's too late for Moore, could Emma Roberts be the next role model for impressionable young women? Or are cell-phone privileges that relevant of a punishment? Does this little incident really merit a prediction of her Hollywood success?

I don't know, and I'm not one to be overly optimistic, but considering the trails blazed by those before, I'll be rooting for her.

And I suppose Dakota Fanning's right behind her...

Freedom Is Slavery

Recently, Congress passed and President Bush signed two pieces of legislation that have become highly controversial, despite the complete or near-complete ignorance of the average American, including myself, about their details and contents. Today, we will look at the first.

The Patriot Act was a rather long document signed into law on October 26, 2001. I vaguely remember the Democrats and liberal media whining about losing freedoms, (but of course Democrats and the liberal media were always wrong, and Bush and the Republicans were always right) and I vaguely remember thinking, so what if the government can now see what library books I check out? I have nothing to hide. If it helps catch terrorists, then so be it.

There are also claims that specific provisions in the Patriot Act have resulted in the prevention of terrorist plots on American soil. Well, what greater proof could you need? Who care about what freedoms we do or do not have by this Act if it was this Act and this Act alone that prevented an attack, right?

Unfortunately, life is never that simple.

The passing of the Patriot Act was shady to begin with. Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Judicial Analyst, states that only two people read the entire Act before the vote was held in Congress, and both voted against it [1]. Napolitano says that Ron Paul and the other Congressmen were given 15 minutes to "look over" the 315-page document on the House intranet. [2]

Napolitano says that John Ashcroft claimed the Act "was so important that they didn't have time to read it before they could vote on it," [3] so Congressmen voted to pass it, even without being aware of what it said. Ron Paul was one of the few who was too suspicious to give them the benefit of the doubt, and he voted NO.

What does all of that mean for us?

First, even if there was absolutely nothing in the Patriot Act that would bother me ~ not a single line that I would have problem giving the government the power to control ~ I still feel uneasy about the fact that our representatives voted to pass it without knowing what all of those things were.

Let's go back to the library books thing. Anyone can check out any book at a library. How could the government know if there are certain books that terrorists are more likely to check out? And if there are, what if I decided to check all of those books out because I wanted to learn things? It's a public library, and I can check out whatever I want! How would that tell the government whether or not I am likely to be a terrorist?

Second, what about this fundamental notion that in a post-9/11 world we have to give up some freedoms in order to protect our freedoms of life and safety? Such a notion would seem to be legitimate, but where does it stop?

Engaging in political discussions on Facebook, I have seen someone named Jyoti Das claiming that his father was looking up stuff online about
9/11 government-caused conspiracy theories, both "for" and "against." A week later, a Secret Service agent showed up at his house and asked some questions. Another man (a white Caucasian) claims that he did "something" to get himself placed on a terrorist watch list, and has spoken with Secret Service agents. If one assumes that these independent stories are not complete lies, there are no doubt other, similar stories out there.

Do you seriously think that there will never be another terrorist attack on American soil? What further liberties will we have to give up so that the government can protect us?

After all, if knowing what library books terrorists check out helps the government identity them, shouldn't knowing what books they buy at bookstores be just as helpful? And what about those who do research online? It's not like it's hard to keep track of what IP addresses my computer requests access to every time I click on a page.

So what is the line? And, yet, if it comes down to giving up freedoms or death ~ how can we argue? Unless, of course, Big Brother only wants us to think that this is what it comes down to.

Such conspiracy-laden speculation, this stripping away of our freedoms in order to protect them, is interesting, that sort of simultaneous exercise in "fun" and "scary." It is probably exaggerated, yet certainly not entirely fabricated, and potentially both frightening and dangeorus.

But, after all, my friends, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 4:55
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 5:10
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 4:45