AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > February
February 2008
Should airport security be allowed to search and seize our digital devices?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
Andy acts like Richard Reid was a fairy tale. But Al-Qaeda came within seconds of taking down an American Airlines flight via the very non-fairy-tale explosives in his shoes. Compared to that risk, the annoyance of doffing my shoes and handing over my Blackberry is minor.
Security versus privacy is a permanent dilemma. But the reason people are complacent enough to complain about laptop privacy is precisely because we’ve gotten assertive about security. I don’t want our privacy rights trashed. But if it comes to a choice, I’d far rather officials be allowed to read my private emails, if doing the same thing elsewhere catches a terrorist.
Contrary to what Andy might want you to believe, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have to abide by extensive search and seizure standards - 33 pages of them. Via email, a spokesperson told me, “It is not the intent of CBP to subject travelers to unwarranted scrutiny. [But] all travelers entering the United States, including U.S. citizens, are required to participate in CBP processing…. CBP Officers are verifying admissibility and looking for possible terrorists, terrorist weapons or narcotics. Laptop computers may be subject to detention for violation of criminal law such as if the laptop contains information with possible ties to terrorism, narcotics smuggling, child pornography or other criminal activity.”
CBP officials are worried about terrorists and pushers, not your medical records. Since digital communication remains the primary way terrorists communicate around the globe, digital devices must be able to be reviewed.
Dr. James Carafano, a Heritage Foundation security expert, explained in an interview that “To fight terrorism, we need to look for terrorists. And evidence has shown that that means doing everything from physical searches to wiretaps to computer searches. Should we do these things? If you want to stop terrorists, electronic information is vital. But we must be doing it legally. We want a system that both provides security and protects our liberty.” Better than most of us, Carofano understands the need:nineteen active terrorist attempts against America have been prevented since 9/11.
In a perfect world, we could have perfect privacy and perfect peace, but we don’t live in a perfect world. We are under attack and this is one way we must be able to defend ourselves.
Is indecency running rampant in our shopping malls?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Imagine that you’re out with your teenage children and suddenly see a young woman walking nearby, completely topless except for one strategically-placed hand. Or some guys and girls run by, and one has clearly had his pants and underwear completely off - he’s pulling them up, but you can see most of his backside. Or perhaps a half-dozen good-looking women strut by in nothing but underwear and high heels.
Many observers would be irritated or shocked; some might even be angry enough at the young woman to report her for indecent exposure. But while these incidents would violate any local statute for indecency or partial public nudity, most of us would probably shrug them off as a momentary or isolated incidents.
So why do we shrug it off when retailers take those same images, blow them up larger than life, and put them in hundreds of malls and teenage clothing stores around the country? The pictures currently in the windows of Abercrombie & Fitch and Victoria’s Secret contain the exact images described above, and would violate public indecency standards in person. And yet the whole point is for kids to see them in our malls!
Virginia Beach police recently tried to enforce local obscenity laws, seizing two giant A&F posters from a mall store and citing the store manager on obscenity charges - which were later dropped since obscenity is a tougher legal standard than indecency.
What was A&F’s reaction? Instead of contrition and a promise to be more respectful of our kids, spokesman Thomas Lennox’s rejoinder was, “These photos are tame.”
And that is the reason advertising is getting more indecent: Some retailers have a warped sense of “normal,” and mainstream America isn’t letting them know. In Virginia Beach, the A&F store got complaints - but the mall management got none! All indecency and obscenity laws depend on an image violating acceptable “community standards.” Well, most people find sexual advertising far less acceptable than A&F thinks. If concerned people don’t join groups like iCareCoalition.org to push back, we have only ourselves to blame when A&F is able to say the Virginia police had an “incredible overreaction” - because, in their view, the community obviously finds those pictures totally fine.
Rebuttal
It’s amazing that my colleague thinks any of us would for one minute “shrug off” the sight of a half-dozen Victoria’s Secret types in underwear and high heels walking by in a mall. Why, husbands might finally beg to go shopping!
I hardly relish going to bat for Victoria’s Secret or, especially, Abercrombie & Fitch, a store once faced with a “girlcott” by Pittsburgh teens for a misogynist t-shirt line, a business forced to shell out $40 million in a racially-charged employment discrimination suit.
Still, I’m pleased that the city of Virginia Beach is no longer going after Brendon Payne, the unfortunate A&F store manager threatened with up to a year in jail for obscenity charges, merely for displaying posters that were part of a national campaign. Fortunately, local authorities finally conceded he didn’t violate a city code outlawing “obscene materials in a business open to juveniles.”
I regularly patronize an establishment open to juveniles that displays far more revealing images — my city’s premier art museum. A museum employee shared with me that a highly-prized recent acquisition, a naked statue, had not received “nearly as many complaints as we thought it might.”
Am I really comparing a masterpiece in an art museum to underwear models or racy photographs hung in a store populated by teens? Of course not — I was enthralled with the statue, whereas I find many mall displays a bit too salacious for my taste. Yet when even the Virginia Beach city attorney admits one A & F poster is akin to something you might see “walking down the streets,” I’m reminded why acceptable “community standards” are not decided by some handful of outraged citizens. A rigorous legal criteria ensures that neither museum nor mall aesthetics are subject to random, punitive witch hunts.
My sympathies never lie with alienating, elitist retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch — girlcott them, boycott them, shop elsewhere if the vibe offends. Yet I’ll always go to bat for art, and for the ability of young people to somehow survive exposure to an underwear model in an underwear store, or the image of a statuesque guy spotted in a field on a lazy summer afternoon. Now — you want to talk mall indecency? Look at the price tags …
Where do women voters stand
after Super Tuesday?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I had a little trouble voting the other day. In my excitement I neglected to insert the electronic voting card until it fully clicked into place. If the precinct volunteers noticed me frowning at the screen, lingering at the booth a little longer than necessary, they probably just thought, “Here we go again. Another female voter who can’t make up her mind.”
For women of both parties, last Tuesday’s ballot was enough to give anyone pause. Democrats were made giddy by their choices, happily asking themselves, “Which way do I want to help make history?” Republican women were also kicking around the candidates, for entirely different reasons— their choices felt more filled with compromise. The GOP offered them a hair-triggered straight-talker hated by his party’s base, a folksy preacher without a prayer and a Mormon flip-flopper with the visage of Reagan but none of the charisma.
In what Republican author Peggy Noonan rightly calls the “most confounding election cycle of our lifetime” we find Hillary Clinton branded as part of the staunch old guard and Ann Coulter threatening to campaign for her. Yet if you can see beyond the pummeling circus of spin, interesting new possibilities emerge. For instance, older women are indeed drawn to Hillary yet their younger peers are increasingly breaking ranks with the sisterhood, smitten with Barack Obama’s beyond-gender-and-race persona.
Democrats are still awash in identity politics—that’s what happens when you give more than one identity a seat at the table. Yet encouraging statistics show a vast majority of Democrats happy with either of their choices. Early exit polls garnered from 16 states showed that over 70 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if either Clinton or Obama wins the nomination.
I predict that when November comes, indecision will be owned by moderate Republican and Independent women. Disappointed by our Iraq policies, pro-choice to a degree—what Republican candidate speaks to their concerns? These women, tired of the personal vendettas, tired of the safe choices, tired of being tired, just might join Democrats in spurring change and making history. Maybe, just maybe, when they look at their options and consider their futures, something new will click into place.
Rebuttal
I confess that Andy wins on the “enthusiasm gap,” but I totally disagree with her conclusions. Yes, 15 million Democrats took part in the historic Super Tuesday primaries compared to 9 million Republicans.
But even though the media discusses discontent in the Republican ranks, what isn’t taken into account is that Republicans had a record-breaking turnout in many areas. In a telephone interview, Jo Ann Davidson, the Co-Chairman for the Republican National Committee (RNC) explained that despite the media’s view that there is “no interest or energy” in the Republican Party right now, they raised $30 million more than Democrats in 2007.
There is a great deal of interest and energy among Republicans - but also a great deal of frustration in the wake of Super Tuesday, especially among conservative women. Democrat women are getting lots of scrutiny, obviously, but there is so little attention on the Republican side, that the RNC doesn’t even know who its women voted for!
In the last election, 78 percent of all Republicans identified themselves as conservative and 60 percent prioritized values issues. But Romney and Huckabee split those votes in the all-important Super Tuesday primaries, leaving more moderates - and thus possibly the nomination — with McCain. And those moderates seem very happy with him as a candidate; it’s the conservatives who aren’t.
Most conservative women feel strongly about issues such as protecting the unborn, traditional marriage and religious speech. And they want to avoid big government and universal health care. But frankly, just as important is a sense of security with the candidate as a person they can trust to consistently look out for their beliefs in office. And so conservative women are very uneasy with someone like McCain, who has a famous hair-trigger temper and a record of inconsistency - and is so non-conservative that he almost left the Republican party.
So as much as Andy salivates at the prospect of new recruits, conservative women aren’t going to abandon their beliefs just to make history by electing the first female or black President. But from where I sit, there is a real risk that if they don’t have somewhere to put all their energy and their concern, they might sit out the election. If the GOP doesn’t want that, they’d better find a way to speak to those women. Fast.
Are We Harming Our Kids By Trying to Make Them Happy?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
On a morning talk show recently with a panel of two teenagers, I listened as the hosts asked the teens, “If your parents are unhappy together, would you prefer they split up?” Both said yes - something I’d heard a surprising number of times in my own research. One 17-year-old with still-married parents said, essentially, “Why would I want them to stay together if they aren’t happy?” I glanced out into the studio audience and watched his mother’s mouth fall open in shock.
I realized how much our kids are harmed by the concept of seeking happiness and moving on if we don’t get it. Happiness should be a by-product of a well-lived life that includes duty, and a mind-set that finds contentment even in difficult circumstances. Prioritizing happiness as a goal in itself teaches kids to ditch duty when it hurts, and to go for quick-fix-happiness - which often causes later pain.
Years ago, Psychologist Walter Mischel demonstrated the powerful effects of the ability to delay gratification. Four year-olds who could resist eating a sweet in order to gain two later ended up being more successful and well-adjusted in their teen years, compared to their “happiness now” peers.
Extensive research by Dr. Connie Dawson, co-author of [ITAL] How Much is Enough?, [END ITAL] demonstrates how often “trying to make kids happy” leads to overindulgence and adult dysfunction. As she noted in an interview, “Today’s parents are confused. Many were reared to think that ‘kids should have a smile on their face.’ Baloney. That creates an over-inflated sense of self. It’s no laughing matter and not fun when they are adults having tantrums… We would probably be in far less of a financial crunch nationally today, if delaying gratification was part of our culture.”
Kids need to learn that pushing through challenges and delaying happiness has wonderful results. A Center for Marriage and Families study found that “Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later.”
My own kids are usually happy, and I want them to be! And it’s so tempting to make that my main priority. But it’s also heartening to learn that avoiding that temptation will probably make them far happier in the end.
Rebuttal
This just in: 17-year-olds romanticize relationships and can’t imagine having to ever work on one. Jaw-dropping news? I didn’t think so. Idealized views of love define youth, they’re part and parcel of that wonderful teenage blind optimism a few more years in the real world take away.
In fairness, I do agree with the foundation of what Shaunti argues here—how can I not? I’ve been happily married almost 18 years. I’m also happy to give feedback that wipes a smile off my children’s faces, all in the name of good limit setting.
Yet I hit a snag with this line: “Happiness should be a by-product of a well-lived life that includes duty, and a mind-set that finds contentment even in difficult circumstances.”
Fair enough—but who defines “duty?” What constitutes bearable “difficult circumstances?” My concern increases when I delve deeper into the particular marriage study Shaunti cites, and realize it’s connected to “Marriage Movement” head cheerleader Maggie Gallagher. If she’s defining “duty”, then I’m duty-bound to disagree.
More marriage-obsessed than the Style Network, Maggie Gallagher attributes all good things to the state of matrimony. Extremists like Gallagher are happy to lay out the Duty and Weathering Adversity Game Plan for everyone: Abstain from sex until marriage. Marry and have kids. In a bad marriage? Stick it out because it’s bound to get better. Gay? Sorry. You’re excluded from this club, and by association the keys to happiness.
In other words, the healthiest and most fulfilling lifestyle available to all of us is exactly like the one currently enjoyed by Maggie Gallagher. What a coincidence! We all need limits, no one more so than children. Yet clearly there’s a middle ground between the hedonistic 1970s California hot tub stereotype that absolutists fear (and perpetuate) and a model that recognizes that differences in circumstances, goals and generations can lead to differing approaches.
Making our kids happy should not be job number one. Yet if we know when to put the playbook down and let them make their own way, we can leave idealized fantasies behind and enter the real world together. Then, even family happiness just might have a fighting chance.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re not a terrorist. There’s no plan to blow up a ballpark on your laptop, no Al-Qaeda cell phone numbers in your Fave Five. You might walk through life convinced that you’re immune to a frightening invasion of privacy — after all , you’ve got nothing to hide.
Well, think again, because if part of that journey involves re-entering the U.S., you might learn what a serious invasion of privacy feels like. Did you know that U.S. Customs and Border Protection can force passengers to give up full access to electronic files, even seizing them for indefinite periods?
“This is an issue that affects anyone who crosses the border,” explains Marcia Hofmann, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that filed a lawsuit to seek clarification on such seizures. “The danger is that people think that this only happens to people who look Middle Eastern, and they say, ‘That’s a shame, but nothing that I have to worry about.’ This literally could happen to anybody — we got a report from a priest this past week.”
Before you start cracking jokes about priests with something to hide, what feels private to YOU— perhaps a troubling medical condition, an impending divorce or job search, all your e-mails and website searches? Who sees these files — the FBI? Your local police department? With the “border exception” to search and seizure laws, there’s no telling who has access to your information.
Hofmann’s group aims to “empower people to do what is necessary to protect their belongings and digital information.” That includes making sure this alarming scenario is well-known; in a recent survey of travel industry executives, 81 percent had no idea that electronic devices can be permanently confiscated. Meanwhile, terrorists surely keep up, and have other ways to transmit information across our borders in a less detectable manner. So in the end, Al-Qaeda may feel safer from prying customs agents than you do.
We all need to make sacrifices for safety. However, faced with the same bureaucracy that came up with fighting terrorism by removing our shoes — derided as pointless by numerous other nations — Americans deserve to better understand how serious compromises to our rights yield productive benefits.