There is an ongoing debate amongst parents in the U.S. about whether or not they should let their children participate on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. One side argues that resistance is futile while the other side hopes that they can shield their kids from the “cruel world” and maintain privacy by keeping them off the net. Both sides miss the mark.

Just because your child doesn’t have a Facebook account doesn’t mean that their picture and other personal information are not “out there” already. Unless you plan on home schooling and ensuring that your kid never attends a birthday party, sleeps over at a friend’s house or plays sports, their image and at least some personal information is going to be available online (don’t forget about school websites, newsletters, Cub Scouts/Brownies, emails, chat session logs, etc.). Attempts to hermetically seal your child from the rest of the world are about as likely to succeed as the fight against filesharing (remember Napster?) and Wikileaks. The focus is on the wrong part of the equation – the part you can’t control. But merely throwing up your hands and hoping for the best without taking precautions is equally foolish. Here a tip that will help you sleep at night.

All Knowledge is Common

When I was growing up it was clearly understood that you never accept a ride from a stranger. Straight forward, right? Not really.

Scenario One – Little Johnny is walking home from school when a man pulls up in his van, rolls down his window and says “Johnny, get in the car. Your parents sent me to pick you up.”

Little Johnny is way too smart for this because his parents have drilled it into him to NEVER get in the car with strangers.

Scenario Two – Little Johnny is walking home from school when a man pulls up in his van, rolls down his window and says “Johnny, get in the car! Your parents sent me to pick you up. There’s been an emergency!”

Little Johnny hesitates.

“Come on, Johnny! They’re waiting at the hospital!”

Johnny is still not convinced because his parents taught him that there are bad people in the world who will use this exact tactic in order to trick him. He is about to run away.

“Get in the car right now, Johnny! I’m not joking around. I’m good friends with your parents Susie and Michael. I also know your older sister Holly and your dog Bongo. He sleeps in the bathtub, right?”

He says this sternly. Why? Because most kids are taught to be respectful to adults. This, combined with the personal information, makes Johnny reconsider. He looks confused. The man rolls his eyes and Johnny, feeling somewhat embarrassed, gets into the car.

Tip: Kids need to know that NOTHING is personal knowledge anymore. Nothing. The fact that this guy knows some personal information about Johnny does not make him a friend. Anyone with a computer can connect the dots. Little Johnny’s picture was recently in the local paper (print and online) because he scored 4 goals in his soccer game. His parent’s names were also mentioned in the article (bragging rights!). And while Johnny himself is not on Facebook, etc., his sister is and so are several of his friends who  have visited the house, taken pictures with Bongo and posted them everywhere with the type of descriptive captions that predators greatly appreciate.

I’ll post some addition suggestions soon (i.e. use of passwords and distress signals). Meanwhile, comments, criticism, and other tips are welcome.

I gave a lecture to the Salem State College Lifelong Learner’s Institute (LLI) on July 7th, 2010. The forty five minute talk entitled “Al Qaeda: Then and Now” was followed by an hour of Q and A. These three videos come directly from the Q and A.

If you’d like a complete copy of my PowerPoint just shoot me an email.

Comments and questions are always appreciated.

Part One: Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq

Part Two: Nation building, exit plans, images and perceptions

Part Three: Cut and run? Troop Fatigue

Sometime after the BP oil leak started but before Israel commandos stormed a ship full of Palestinian activists, the Obama administration issued the new National Security Strategy (NSS). Federal law requires POTUS to submit “timely” NSS reports to Congress to ensure that the bureaucracy is on the same page (no small task when you consider all of the different layers) and announce significant changes in strategy. It’s intentionally vague and leaves the “how” to subordinate commands (i.e. DHS, The Pentagon, etc.).

Paul B. Stares, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), points out:

“The NSS is largely silent on how the United States will manage the various dilemmas and tradeoffs that come with working through an increasingly complex and fragmented international system. “

You can read the whole thing right here.
The Reader’s Digest version is here.
You can read archived National Security Strategies here.

The reactions are predictable and cover the spectrum, but if you take the time to read it yourself you’ll see that in spite of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice’s claim that it is a “dramatic departure” from the past, it’s much of the same.

Rick Fontaine (via ForeignPolicy.com) cuts to the chase:

“…the name is somewhat of a misnomer: the National Security Strategy isn’t really a strategy — in every administration it’s more like a really long speech.”

My favorite was the Fox News story entitled “Obama’s New National Security Strategy Abandons Bush’s Unilateralism.” Page 22 of the NSS quite clearly states the opposite:

“The United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests, yet we also seek to adhere to standards that govern the use of force.”

Highlights: pages 17 and 18 declare the United States’ intention to maintain its military supremacy and page 20 explicitly names Pakistan as ground zero of the war with Al Qaeda (finally). It’s noteworthy that the report goes out of its way to characterize the Iraq War as a “decision”, as opposed to the “Good War” in Afghanistan that was thrust upon us as a result of the September 11th attacks.

Sidenote: It was interesting to see the growing links between terrorism and organized crime (especially the drug trade) mentioned in the NSS for the first time, but does this sound realistic? (49):

“Combating transnational criminal and trafficking networks requires a multidimensional strategy that safeguards citizens, breaks the financial strength of criminal and terrorist networks, disrupts illicit, trafficking networks, defeats transnational criminal organizations, fights government corruption, strengthens the rule of law, bolsters judicial systems, and improves transparency.”

Oh, is that all?

Comments and criticism are always welcome.

Michael Shermer is the founder of Skeptic Magazine and the Skeptics Society.

He is also the successful author of 9 books, including bestsellers Why People Believe Weird Things and The Mind of the Market: How Biology and Psychology Shape Our Economic Lives. In addition, he has appeared on “The Colbert Report, 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, Larry King Live, Tom Snyder, Donahue, Oprah, Leeza, Unsolved Mysteries (but, proudly, never Jerry Springer!), and other shows as a skeptic of weird and extraordinary claims, as well as interviews in countless documentaries aired on PBS, A&E, Discovery, The History Channel, The Science Channel, and The Learning Channel. Shermer was the co-host and co-producer of the 13-hour Family Channel television series, Exploring the Unknown.”

Shermer’s mission (and that of the Skeptics Society) is to “serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims.” In doing so, he tends to ruffle a lot of feathers. Not intentionally, as you’ll see in my interview, he’s anything but confrontational. However, when you aggressively question the claims of religion, pseudoscience, cults, psychics, holocaust deniers and UFO believers, you’re bound to encounter some resistance.

The Skeptics Society seeks to follow the example of Spinoza:

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

—Baruch Spinoza

I recently asked Shermer if that was easier said than done. Below is his answer to that question as well as some other parts of our conversation.

Below is Shermer’s 2006 “TED Talk.” It’s well worth your time if you want to see what Mother Theresa, the Virgin Mary and Led Zeppelin have in common.

Here’s a bonus video Shermer made for The Richard Dawkins foundation. It’s a useful guide to analyzing outrageous claims – a common sense check. Michael also reveals the “mystery” of the pyramids at the 4:20 mark.

Don’t forget to become a fan of Michael Shermer on Facebook and follow him on Twitter.

Invoking the Founding Fathers

It seems that over the past year or so, politicians on both sides of the aisle have taken to invoking the Founding Fathers during their speeches and while answering questions for the evening news. In doing so, they try to give the impression that if somehow the Founders could magically awaken from their slumber, they would no doubt be on “their side.” Sarah Palin claims to know that they would denounce President Obama’s plans as inherently “Un-American” and Democrats of all stripes claim to know that they would uncategorically denounce the Patriot Act and the way we execute the War on Terror. Maybe so, but I’d be willing to bet that those issues would not be the first of their surprises.

There’s no doubt that the Founding Fathers were great men. They were courageous intellectuals unafraid of speaking truth to power and prepared to die rather than sacrifice what they saw as their “God given” freedoms. They took an untrained, under-equipped “Army” (just barely) and defeated the British Empire. They set up a constitution with individual rights and a balance of power unheard of anywhere around the world at that time. But let’s be honest for a moment, they are also the men who gave us the 3/5ths Compromise at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. In case you’ve forgotten, the compromise meant that each African American black person would only be counted as 3/5ths of a person in the national census. Professor James Joyner sums it up even better:

“The other thing to keep in mind here is that it’s a misnomer to say that slaves were considered “3/5 of a person.” Indeed, as Dred Scott proved, they were in fact 0/5 of a person. The 3/5 was merely an accounting gimmick.”

Therefore, I think it’s pretty safe to say that one of the first things that would spin their heads if they could see the U.S.A. of 2009 is that black people African Americans are no longer in slavery and one of “those people” has actually been elected President! How would that go over to a group whose majority never even considered them people? Again, those were the times and I believe it was the great historian Barbara Tuchman who once stated that it is unfair and illogical to judge the actions of the past by the values of today (I’m paraphrasing). I agree. But the historical record speaks for itself. The U.S. did not abolish slavery until December 18, 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified ensuring that:

“neither slavery nor involuntary servitude… shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

The 13th Amendment wasn’t ratified until long after the Founders had stopped making history and had become part of it. What do you think would grab their attention after that (besides all of the bewildering technological breakthroughs)? How about the role of women in society?

One of the most famous phrases from our Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal”, was written that way for a reason. Women were clearly not seen as equals. Sure, they weren’t enslaved like black Americans, but their participation in government was so limited it was almost unheard of. Susan B. Anthony, heralded today as a pioneer of civil rights, was arrested in 1872 when she had the audacity to try and vote for Ulysses S. Grant in the presidential election. Women weren’t permitted to vote in the U.S. until the 19th Amendment was ratified on August 26th, 1920 which, in our short national history, wasn’t very long ago.

This isn’t a hit piece on the U.S. I love my country and I’m proud of it. But when we sanitize our record to make things seem rosier than they were – we don’t do ourselves any favors. It’s not good for our children to grow up thinking George Washington never told a lie or that Abraham Lincoln loved black people so much he fought the Civil War on their behalf. We have to remember the good with the bad or we end up looking like North Korea and its official state media claim that the first time Kim Jong IL played golf he shot 11 holes in one.

So, the next time you hear Sarah Palin or Barack Obama invoke the loving memory of the Founding Fathers, know full well the irony. If it were left up to the Founders, neither of them would have ever been permitted to vote, govern or, in Obama’s case, live free. The “unalienable” rights endowed by their creator wouldn’t have applied to them.

Comments and criticism are welcome.

See you next week.

BONUS UPDATE 7/24/09, 5:00PM to include:

A reader writes:

Good stuff this week. Any chance on getting your thoughts/opinions in the next
FMF on the current race situation with the Cambridge police/Prof.
Gates/President Obama?

I intentionally avoided this story this week because it has completely saturated the news cycles since the story originally broke. But since you asked, I’ll take a stab.

Personally, I don’t know exactly what happened because I wasn’t there and both sides are telling their own versions of the truth. However, my gut tells me that the professor (while rightfully angry) quickly decided he was going to make a federal case out of the situation. And I’m a little distraught that the cop (Sergeant James Crowley) didn’t see it coming. I know hindsight is 20/20 and I’ve never spent a single day in a cop’s shoes, but someone as experienced as Crowley should have done whatever it took to diffuse the situation – even if that meant leaving while Gates continued to scream. You’re going to end up in the newspapers one way or another, but Crowley made it 10 times worse by cuffing the Harvard professor and locking him up.

As for Obama – I’m furious with how “stupidly” the alleged genius handled the question at his presser on Wednesday night. His words were ill-chosen and way too strong for what (at the end of the day) is little more than a local issue. There are many layers of government and bureaucracy between Cambridge and the White House. He set a bad precedent by involving himself, especially with such strong language. The fact that he knows Gates personally should have made him temper his comments even more, not less. Better yet – don’t comment at all. You’d think POTUS has better things to worry about.

Am I wrong? – RHM