NSA Surveillance – Should You be Afraid, Very Afraid?

A big news story broke this week by The Guardian (a U.K. news source) about the U.S. NSA surveillance program called “PRISM.” (Don’t ask me if PRISM is an acronym for anything because if it is, I surely can’t find it. ) Apparently, the NSA has been collection phone records of Verizon customers. Later, there were more reports that the NSA also has access to everyone’s emails and Internet activity such as a person’s search history, videos, photos, etc.  As my mind races to think of all the web sites I’ve accessed just in the last week – even accidentally – my initial response to this news is alarm.

What’s happened to privacy, or, as some say, our right to privacy? Technically. The US Constitution’s Bill of Rights does not specifically grant a right to privacy. While the 4th Amendment provides for protection from unreasonable search and seizure, it never mentions privacy. The Bill of Rights does mention “liberty,” which many believe implies a right to privacy. The privacy issue has always been a gray area but some laws are written in keeping with the spirit of a personal privacy.

Should you be worried that the government may be looking over your shoulder? Yes – and no. The argument that if you’re not doing anything wrong you should not be worried is nonsensical; one may not be doing anything wrong but someone who doesn’t know you may think you are, and you may find yourself in trouble over nothing. I’m reminded of a review of a TV show I posted a few years ago (the show was “24”) and afterwards, my site traffic was filled with hits coming from government web sites located in Washington D.C. I suspect that some of the words I used to describe the activity on the show may have set off alarm bells. (As I don’t want the government looking at my blogs, I’ll refrain from repeating those words here. ) Bottom line is that, in my opinion, the government has been looking at Internet activity for a long time. And for good reason. There are people out there who are using the Internet, phones, computers, tablets, and any technology available, to do bad things. While I don’t like the government scanning my every word, I also want them to catch people who DO mean harm BEFORE they actually can do harm. Most people should have nothing to fear by this government surveillance, so stop worrying about what we sites you visited, or about who you called, or what photos you took.

All that said, there should be a right to privacy – with limits. I believe that if the government wants to actually listen to my phone calls or read my emails, they need to get the proper warrants. I can be more flexible on the issue of them seeing what phone numbers I am calling, or what web sites I visit, or even what books I read, in order to thwart terrorism. This is a tough world we live in, and we need to allow the government the ability to do high-level research in order to help zero in on those who do mean harm. We cannot expect the government to protect us when we tie their hands. Search engines like Google and Yahoo, cell phone companies, and web sites like Twitter and Facebook where many post the most boring minutia of their lives are already collecting data on their users, and some people post way too much information to the public on the Internet. The government would be remiss if they didn’t find a way to tap into that hoard of information. The only way to stop the flow of data to the government and to businesses is to stop using all the technology and stop sharing too much information on the Internet – and I don’t see that happening any time soon.


All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted


Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

The Unsocial Side of Social Media and The Downfall of Civility

Social media sites – Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, to name a few – are increasingly becoming a part of everyone’s lives. Having to maintain various social media sites for my web sites, I’ve experienced both the good and the bad sides of social media. The good side: it’s great way to share information to a wide range of people, keep up to date on news and politics, or follow a favorite TV show or celebrity. The bad side: people behaving badly.

Back in the “old days” - before the Internet, email, and social media sites - people communicated mostly face to face or over the phone. People knew the real names of those to whom they were speaking, so it was important to be civil. It was easy to gauge emotions and to determine if a person was happy, sad, joking, or serious. One never used “fighting words” unless they were prepared for a fight, either physically or verbally. Before opening one’s mouth, it was smart to engage the brain. If a person communicated in writing – such as in a letter or greeting card – it was important to think out the message before writing/typing as changes were time consuming.

As email became available, it promoted communicating with speed, and was quickly embraced by businesses. Those that wrote angry emails and pressed “send” before thinking about the repercussions learned that their anger often diminished their message, alienated people, and sometimes ended careers.

With the Internet also came Internet forums and discussion groups, where members could dialog anonymously. It was fun to share information with others but it didn't take long before civility flew out the window. Now a person could say what they wanted to anyone and not worry about anyone knowing who they really were. (This was when Internet trolls were born.)

As social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter took hold, people began to connect and communicate in new ways. It was easy to communicate with family, friends, acquaintances, and those outside the normal person’s circle – politicians, businesses, celebrities – you name it. A person could connect to just about anybody else in the world through social media outlets. Information now travels around the world with the speed of light. That’s a good thing. The bad thing: civility took another hit. Now a person can verbally attack anybody as easily and as quickly as I could type this sentence, and reach a wide audience with speed. The effect is somewhat less on Facebook, where - technically - people are supposed to sign up using their real name, and where they should only “friend” those they actually know. But this doesn’t exempt members of Facebook from being attacked with words by someone they call a “friend.” On Twitter, however, one can set up any name they want (as long as it doesn’t exceed a certain number of characters) so people can be whomever they want. The good side is that people aren’t afraid to say what they really think, a plus for freedom of speech. The downside is that people aren’t afraid to say what they really think, and some cross the line with their words. I’m amazed at how shocked people can be when they send an angry tweet, or post an inappropriate photo, or say something incredibly stupid or insensitive, and they find it coming back to bite them. This has been evident more with high profile “tweeters” such as celebrities and politicians who likely have large followings and whose slip-ups on Twitter can spread exponentially.

Trouble on social media can be avoided by following some very simple guidelines:


1. What you write is likely out there forever and likely accessible to the public. Sure, some sites have privacy controls,  and updates, tweets, photos and videos can be deleted, but that doesn’t mean someone hasn’t copied it or forwarded it someone else before you deleted it. THINK before you post your message. Your words, photos, and videos can follow you for life.

2. Never post photos on the Internet that you wouldn’t want your parents, grandparents, children, spouse, significant other, constituents, boss, co-workers, potential employers, etc. to see. Because if you do, they will.

3. Write your message as if the person reading it is standing right in front of you. Most people aren’t likely to insult someone right to their face, at least not without thinking about it first.

4. There is such a thing as too much information. You don’t have to tell everyone every little single thing you do or think, and no one likes a braggart. Keep your messages brief and your posts to a minimum.

5. If you post something on social media, expect feedback. If what you posted is controversial, you’ll REALLY get feedback, and, in the case of Twitter, likely from people who may not follow you. Remember, by sharing on public social media, you asked for it. You reap what you sow.

6. Don’t call people names or swear at them, period. It’s childish and serves no purpose.

7. Never post in anger. Think about the damage your words can cause…to yourself, your image, your reputation, and even family and friends.


Social media is an excellent way to stay connected to both your inner circle and the rest of the world. When used correctly, social media can inform, unite, and inspire others. When used incorrectly, it can ruin friendships, destroy a person’s image, create hard feelings, and alienate people. It’s not hard to use social media in a manner that brings out the best in people. By starting with thinking before you post, and by being civil, we can encourage the best in others!



All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Cleveland’s Bishop Lennon Excommunicates a Good Priest

First and foremost, let me state that I am a lapsed Catholic. But that’s never stopped me from commenting on The Church’s actions.

The latest idiocy: The head of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese, Bishop Richard Lennon, just this week excommunicated Father Robert Marrone, a priest who has a long standing excellent reputation with many in the diocese.

What was Father Marrone’s infraction, you wonder? No, it wasn’t that he was some sort of sexual deviant – The Church usually lets those guys run amok for decades. No, Father Marrone did an unforgivable thing in the eyes of Bishop Lennon – he set up shop in a new building after Lennon closed Marrone’s church. And after the Vatican overturned Lennon’s many church closings in the Cleveland area – a rare action by the Vatican to say the least – Lennon and Marrone have yet to mend their fences.

It’s interesting to note that Bishop Lennon waited to make this announcement during the time when there is no Pope.

Let’s backtrack for some history on this matter. A few years ago, Bishop Lennon was hell bent on closing churches in the Cleveland diocese, citing financial issues and lack of priests. To help the process, Lennon created small “clusters” of parishes and asked them to decide which church in each cluster should close. After the church clusters decided and made their recommendations to Lennon, Lennon did what he wanted to do anyway, and in 2009 he began closing 50 churches, more than originally planned, and with a total disregard for the recommendations of the church clusters. This also included churches that were financially stable. 

At least 13 of the parishes targeted for closure appealed The Vatican, in a long, drawn out process. During this appeals process, Lennon continued to close the churches, including those that had appealed.

Meanwhile, Marrone - his parish closed - sets up shop a non-Catholic building, and continues to celebrate Mass. Lennon tried previously to convince Cleveland Catholics that the churches he closed were only buildings, yet Lennon publicly expressed his displeasure with Marrone setting up a church in a non-churchlike building. (I guess a church really IS about the building?)

The Vatican then makes a rare move and reverses Lennon’s decision on 12 of the 13 appeals, ruling that Lennon did not follow Church laws in the closings. (Details of specifically which rules were not followed were not made public, but I wonder if Lennon going against the decisions of the church clusters in rules that he himself established wasn’t a big part of the issue.) The 12 churches were ordered to re-open,  unless Lennon files an appeal of his own (he doesn’t).

Eventually, St. Peter’s Church is re-opened by the Cleveland diocese, but without rebel Father Marrone as he and Lennon fail to reconcile. Marrone now finds himself being excommunicated. 

To summarize:
Father Marrone was excommunicated over actions that began with Bishop Richard Lennon closing churches (along with Marrone’s parish St. Peter’s), an action that was later deemed illegal by The Vatican. Had Lennon not performed this illegal action, Marrone would likely have not rebelled, and subsequently there would be no grounds to excommunicate him. 

The Cleveland Catholic Diocese has been a holy mess since Bishop Richard Lennon arrived. His illegal closings of churches had already created irreparable damage with Catholics in the diocese. Now his need to show others that he wears the pants (well, it’s more like flowing robes) in the diocese by not being able to mend fences with Father Marrone makes Lennon look like he’s got an ego too big for his britches (or robes). Granted, Father Marrone may be just as stubborn and bullheaded as Lennon; it’s serious business to set up your own church even after your boss has told you that you can’t do it. But the fact remains – Lennon acted illegally in the eyes of the Vatican, which triggered Marrone’s actions. It’s pathetic that the Church has a history of burying the actions of sex offenders within its ranks, yet a priest defies an illegal order to close his parish and he’s the one to suffer quick and religiously fatal retribution? Something is not right here.

I won’t bore you with my long standing opinion of the disregard the Catholic Church has for women, but I will say that this is one organization that needs an overhaul in more ways than one. While the Cardinals are off electing a new Pope, here’s hoping that sometime soon they will also make some changes in the hierarchy of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese.



All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Too Pooped to Pope And Picking A New Pontiff

Here's another entry in my list of odd things that I’ve experienced in my lifetime – seeing a Pope resign. This hasn’t happened in about 600 years. Being raised in a strict Catholic family but having lapsed years ago, I still have respect for the role of The Pope. It must be a tough job being infallible. Pope Benedict XVI did make the right decision in this case, something that Pope John Paul II also should have done. Seeing John Paul II’s health deteriorate while The Church continued to cart him out was pathetic. (It made me wonder who was really running The Church during that time.)  Finally, we have a Pope who is smart enough and has enough respect for the office that he can say he is too pooped to pope.

And of all the burning, critical questions as to what will happen to him after he leaves the office, at least we have the answer that he will no longer wear his beloved red shoes, changing to a pair of simple brown loafers.

There are questions whether Pope Benedict’s inability to handle the rigors of the office is the only reason he is leaving. Talks of sex scandals in The Church have exploded. If Pope Benedict is unable to deal with the demands of addressing this issue, it is right for him to move aside in the hopes that someone will step up and handle the issue once and for all.

The conclave will soon begin to select a new Pope. Again, it’s a boys club that will make the choice. It is tragic that the Catholic Church continues to demean the role of women in The Church and in the world. Is it too much to ask to get a new Pope who will make some radical changes, like women for priests and allowing priests to marry? I am not holding my breath on this issue. The Church seems to think that God, Jesus, and likely the Holy Spirit is a male and that no female could ever be good enough to have a leadership tole in The Church. Maybe if The Church was more open minded about women, we wouldn’t have a clergy peppered with so many sexual deviants.

All that said, I do believe that the majority of The Church’s clergy are good people, as is many of The Church’s members. Sadly, though, The Church has been slow to throw the bad apples out. Whoever becomes the new Pontiff needs to bring The Church into the 21st century in more ways than one. The last Pope to attempt to re-energize the Church was Pope John XXXIII in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Sadly, The Church seems to have gone backwards at a rapid pace in the last decade, and The Church needs a Pope who is willing to stop that trend and make a more contemporary Church. The question now is, are there enough Cardinals willing to elect someone who is up to that task?




All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Crazy Drivers: Close Encounters of The Vehicular Kind & Driving While Stupid

This past week, I’ve almost been hit many times by other drivers who made serious driving errors. Here’s a short recap of what’s happened just in the last 5 days:

1.A male driver – with what looked like his wife and kids in the car – nearly hit me head on as he tried to enter an “exit only” drive as I was exiting. The drive is clearly marked as an exit only and the roadway from where he turned is marked “no turn” to prevent drivers from even attempting to go in the exit. To avoid hitting me, he had to run his car up on a cement median.

2.While I was driving through a 4 lane intersection (on a green light), a man in the car in front of me slammed on his brakes in the middle of the intersection -  in  the lane heading straight -  so he could make a left turn. (The actual left turn lane was stopped by a red left turn light.)

3.A woman attempted to make a left turn in front of me thinking that she could make it, but rather than continue the turn, she stopped mid-turn and I was forced to slam on my brakes to avoid t-boning her car. Then she tried to reverse back into her lane, almost hitting the vehicle behind her.

4.A car made a right turn from the left turn lane, almost causing me, and another car, to hit them.


It’s bad enough having to worry about people driving drunk/under the influence or distracted from phones and/or texting, it seems there is a new thing to worry about: people driving while stupid (DWS). Who knows, driving while stupid could be part distracted driving and drunk driving and any combination thereof. I suspect that there are enough drivers out there who are sober and have both hands on the wheel who are just making stupid mistakes that they deserve their own special category of bad driver.

How can you avoid someone who is driving while stupid? You can’t. People will continue to make stupid driving mistakes. The best solution: drive defensively. Keep your own eyes on the road, keep your distance from other cars, and watch your speed limit. By all means, pay close attention when approaching intersections, even when you have a green light or the right of way. You know what YOU'RE going to do, but there’s always the chance that someone who is driving while stupid will make a move into your space. If you’re fortunate, you’ll have enough time to react and avoid an accident.

Don’t be the one to get caught drive while stupid. Mind the rules of the road, keep your eyes on the road and hands on the wheel, and be mindful of other drivers around you or your space. If you’re not on your toes, it could cost you injury - or your life!




All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Jury Duty in US District Court – An Interesting Experience

(on right) Carl B. Stokes United States Courthouse, Cleveland Ohio

I recently had the privilege of being selected for jury duty for the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio in Cleveland. It was a very interesting experience. Everyone should have the chance to be called for jury duty, if anything to see firsthand how the American system of justice works in reality – and not how it works on a television show.


A few months ago, it was with a slight sense of dread as I opened a piece of mail from the US District Court in Cleveland. It was just a simple survey to verify my qualifications as a potential juror but I knew exactly what it meant – I would soon be called for jury duty. The survey merely attempts to flush out those situations that would likely exclude people – disabilities, military duty, advanced age, etc. I didn’t fit in any of those categories so I knew it was just a matter of time before I was called.

Sure enough, less than a month later came the notice that I was selected to serve. Every night, beginning on a set date, I was to call the court and hear a recording stating whether my jury group was to report or not. As the term of service is one month or one trial, I had to clear my schedule for a 30 day period…a bit of a hassle as I’d already made plans for the time before the Thanksgiving holiday.

The first night I called, I was informed the trial to which I had been assigned had been moved – so I was able to change my schedule back. Within about a week, the trial date was moved again. But that date stuck, and I reported for duty on the date and time required,

The US District Court in Cleveland is located in downtown Cleveland next to the Tower City complex, and the enclosed walkway from Tower City makes it easy to get to the courthouse. The Carl B. Stokes United States Courthouse is only about 10 years old and the design is contemporary and serene, yet conveys serious business.


Jurors were directed to the very large jury assembly room and were asked to complete a questionnaire. (While some jurors seemed to think that sitting in the back of this large room would mean they would likely not be in the first group selected,  this makes no difference.) Having served on a jury for my hometown once before, I knew that the questions asked on the survey were not random but related to the case in some way. Of course, each question was answered honestly.

And then…the waiting. While jurors were asked to report by 7:30, we weren’t moved to the courtroom until about 3 hours later. The names of potential jurors were called and assigned a juror number, and the group moved to the hallway outside the courtroom, which was several stories up. (The view of the Cleveland skyline and the Terminal Tower can’t be beat!) We were lined up according to the number we were assigned (I had a very low number so I thought I would surely be seated as a juror) and we were led into the courtroom and seated according to the number assigned. Some jurors numbering in the 30s-40s were breathing a sigh of relief thinking they wouldn’t be seated as a juror (they were wrong).

The process of voir dire begins, which is the process where prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds, potential biases, and in some cases the answers on the questionnaire, before being selected to sit on the jury. The phrase voir dire is derived from Latin and French and means "that which is true"; but I say it means “very boring.” When I served on a city jury, voir dire was quick and took only about 15 minutes, but as this case was in a Federal court, the process is far more time consuming and the questioning far more detailed. In this particular case, potential jurors are first asked questions as a group, and then asked questions individually (yet still in a group setting), verifying some basic information, such as name, occupation, etc.  The process stretched for hours as some jurors (in this case, at least 30 jurors) were called to the bench to be asked specific questions based on how the potential juror answered the questionnaire. While the judge, the prosecutor and/or defense attorney asks the potential juror questions, a “white noise” –  like the static heard over an old analog TV with no signal – is heard, which masks what is said at the bench to others in the courtroom (and vice versa). At first it was not an unpleasant sound, but after this went off and on for hours, it became rather annoying. (By the way, the next day my ears were ringing loudly for hours…was it a rebound from all that white noise?)

I was called up to the bench and asked several questions and answered them honestly. Jurors are not told whether they are being selected or disqualified until the attorneys have screened each juror for which they had specific issues with the questionnaire.

Hours later – it was close to 5PM now – the jurors were selected. After going through aver 40 jurors, the court finally picked twelve jurors and a few alternates. I was not selected, and while they don’t explain why, I suspect that due to the nature of the case and some of my answers relating to the questionnaire (which was completed before we were told the charges against the defendant) likely disqualified me. Some of the potential jurors who thought they had high enough numbers that they would not get selected got quite the surprise when they were picked.

The judge in this case was Chief Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., and he did a great job in conducting the entire process. He seemed very sensitive to the fact that the process took quite a bit of time and the potential jurors were an impatient lot.

I don’t know the outcome of the case – it may still be going on as the case was projected to run 4-6 days. I believe that the process, while time consuming, did its best to get a fair and impartial jury.

Even though it was a bit of an inconvenience, I would be happy to do it again, including being seated on the jury. It’s part of the American legal system that everyone should experience  - better as a juror than as a defendant!.



All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Social Security is NOT “Entitlement”

Nothing gets me more agitated than when someone in the media or in Congress refers to Social Security as an entitlement program, as if retiring Americans expect a pay out for doing nothing. As we near the “fiscal cliff” and our government representatives work to keep us from going over the edge, the focus is turning to raising taxes and cutting “entitlements” and Social Security always comes up on that list.

What the media and Congress fails to remember is that Social Security is a program to which Americans pay in while they work. I’ve paid in to social security for over 30 years – many of those years I paid up to the maximum – and I wasn’t given a choice whether I wanted the government to take my hard earned money. Make no mistake, I never expected that Social Security would be my only retirement investment; I’ve built up a 401k account for most of my years worked. But, I never looked at Social Security as something I was entitled to for doing nothing; I looked at it as a promise that the government made to me as it took thousands upon thousands of dollars out of my paycheck each and every year for decades. I don’t look at social security as a charity program: I looked at it as an investment into my future and to the stability of all Americans who worked hard all their lives and don’t want to be destitute in their retirement years.

Is it the fault of Americans who paid in to the program in good faith that the government either mismanaged the money or didn’t make the proper adjustments over the years to keep the program fully funded? No. I wonder to where all this money has gone to over the years and would love to see an full accounting of how all the money is spent or invested.

And why is it that when our government representatives talk about cutting Social Security benefits or changing the program, there is no discussion or focus on GOVERNMENT pensions for government employees? I guarantee that if government pensions were referred to as entitlements, the outrage would be even greater. I am of the opinion that any changes to Social Security must include similar changes to the government paid pensions of ALL current and former US government employees.

It’s also annoying when members of Congress use the excuse that we can’t allow the burden of funding Social Security to be passed along to our children and grandchildren. Considering that my decades of paying in to the program supported my parents and grandparents, I don’t see a problem in younger workers paying in – as I did – to support retirees. There were no government representatives who were worried about the burden that paying in to the program made on baby boomers when they entered the workforce many years ago.

I am not saying there should never be changes to the program. Clearly, workers – both for private sector and government jobs – need to take responsibility for saving for future retirement. I can also understand that the baby boomers moving into retirement age represents a strain on the program. But I find it insulting that our government representatives to refer to Social Security as “entitlement” as if retirees are getting something for doing nothing. This is far from the case. The government “borrowed” that money from workers and as far as I am concerned, they have an obligation to make good on repaying that debt. As the fiscal cliff looms, the worst economic thing that can happen is for the government to throw off the retirees who paid into the program for decades. There are real entitlement programs out there (such as lengthy unemployment benefits) that need to go first.




All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.