Courtesy Carl Robinette

A truly democratic nation must rely on journalism to provide accurate information to its citizens so they can make decisions and analysis based on fact, not on sensational hype or rumor. In the globalized world we live in today, where technology allows the spread of information to have more transnational impact, an accurate and fair media is crucial to the stabilization and progress of the human race.

In the case of the “Arab Spring,” a succession of violent uprisings in the Middle East (with the exception of the primarily peaceful regime change in Tunisia), mainstream media outlets from both the West and the Middle East failed to provide the Arab people and the rest of the world with truly accurate, un-biased reporting. This undermines peaceful efforts for change and distracts the world from human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. Whether purposeful or not, the media have played the role of propagandists for NATO, Israel, and some Arab governments who do not care about the plight of people, but are engaging in an imperial war for power and gain.

Honey Al-Sayed, host of Al-Madina radio in Syria and a Middle Eastern media ambassador to the U.S., was present in Damascus since the violence began in other parts of the country and left to Kuwait after the violence reached the Syrian capitol.

Al-Sayed is not a hard news journalist and her show, rated number one is Syria, is mostly centered on entertainment, popular culture and lifestyle. However, she expects news media to follow a strict ethical integrity, especially when reporting in a time of crisis, but feels that media have done a poor job in giving Syrians and the world the truth.

“You’re not supposed to be biased,” Al-Sayed said. “You’re supposed to be telling the truth, not falsifying the truth.”

Al-Sayed said that some foreign and Arab media have been actively agitating the Syrian people to violently revolt.

“What they did is they caused more bloodshed,” Al-Sayed said. “When you repeatedly bring out shots of a lot of bloody events… and you add to it a little bit of drama and exaggeration, you push more people to want to take revenge. It’s as if they [media] are saying, ‘go in the streets, look what your government is doing to you’ instead of simply stating the truth.”

Covering only opposition efforts against the Syrian government’s tanks oversimplifies the Syrian conflict to that of one between an evil regime and innocent protestors fighting for democracy. In reality, the opposition is fragmented between peaceful protestors, armed gangs, the Muslim Brotherhood, and various religious sects with no cohesion for a new vision for the country.
Lynn El-Boukhari, 24, who lives in Damascus and has no connection to the media, said she does not trust the local Arab or international media because they have not presented the reality of Syria.

“They’re all broadcasting the situation in Syria according to their own opinions, no matter what the truth is,” Boukhari said through Facebook. “Only God knows the truth, but what I’m sure about is that there are terrorists in Syria and there is killing by the Syrian army… but no one knows who they’re killing and under what conditions.”
Boukhari’s personal knowledge as a citizen undermines the foreign media’s demonization of president Bashar Al-Assad as a detached, ruthless dictator who has an evil agenda to destroy his own country.

“I know that there’s an order by the president to only shoot armed people, but not a fatal shot,” said Boukhari. “I know many guys who have been arrested during demonstrations and some more than once, stayed in custody for a week or two and then were released and unharmed. And later, some have met the president Bashar Assad and again, no one hurt them. The president knew they were out on demonstrations against him.”

Why both Arab and Western media have been playing the devil’s advocate in the Middle East is a complicated question and almost no one is willing to answer it. What is happening in Syria is similar to what happened in Libya, where NATO forces and NATO-backed rebels were able to invade and destroy an entire country with the help of the media’s false reporting and omission of facts.

Lizzie Phelan, an independent journalist from the United Kingdom, spoke at the United Nations last August about what she saw in Libya when Tripoli fell to rebels. In a Youtube video documenting her speech in August, Phelan explained how the media never showed the fight of the Libyans to protect their country from NATO and their allegiance to their leader, Moammar Gaddafi.

“This has been an incredible media war leading to the criminalization of the Libyan government and Gaddafi,” Phelan said. “The media said there were thousands of people waiting to be killed in Benghazi, but they never showed us any evidence. They said that 6,000 people were killed by the government—human rights organizations have confirmed that approximately 250 have died from both sides. They said that the Libyan government were attacking the people from the air and Russian satellite intelligence has shown us that this was impossible.

“Instead we saw videos of Black Libyans and other Black Africans being lynched in public squares by NATO’s ground troops, the rebels, with scores of people filming on their mobile phones and western special forces looking on.”

Perhaps the most disturbing betrayal of journalistic ethics has been committed by Al Jazeera, the most popular Middle Eastern news Web site and broadcast channel in the Arab and Western world. Phelan criticized Al Jazeera’s coverage of the conquering of Libya and the coverage of Syria as ridiculously unethical.

“The spectacular U-turn from Al Jazeera, being a somewhat critical voice of imperialism’s wars of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, to being an open facilitator against Libya, Syria and even now the progressive nations of Latin America was perhaps the greatest propaganda trick I have seen in my lifetime,” Phelan said.

This turnabout from Al Jazeera may be because Qatar, a small but powerful Arab League country, owns the news network. According to a New York Times story published yesterday, “Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, became the first Arab leader to propose military intervention to halt the killing in Syria.” Qatar’s government also sent aircraft and special forces to Libya, aiding in the demise of the Gaddafi government.

Phelan recently spent time in Syria working on a documentary. In a video interview with the New York Times, Phelan explained that a similar NATO war is also taking place there, hidden under the illusion of “revolution” put out by the media. Phelan wrote out her full answers to the NY Times’ questions on Black Star News’ website.

“This documentary will actually expose how if it was not for such media, the crisis in Syria would have been over before it started and the people of Syria would be living in peace now,” Phelan wrote. “The difference with journalists from mainstream media in NATO and GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries is that they come with an agenda, and that agenda is to cover what they call is a “revolution” happening inside Syria and to give substance to the false claims that the Syrian government is a threat to the Syrian people.”

The mainstream media has hijacked the story of the Arab people and has put innocent lives in danger. Mainstream media have sensationalized and romanticized the conflicts in Libya, Egypt and Syria, distracting international attention from the brutal massacres which continue to take place in Bahrain, Yemen and Palestine.

“No one cares anymore if the president stays or steps down,” Boukhari said. “It’s a matter of who wins the argument and who gets the cake.”

Illustration by Jeromy Velasco

Imagine this: corruption, conflicts of interest and hypocrisy. Sounds like a bad daytime television show.Think again. It’s just another day at the White House.

A recent viral petition challenges Obama’s 2009 appointment of Michael Taylor, former vice president of public policy at Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, as food safety adviser to FDA commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg. Since its creation a little more than a week ago, more than 226,000 people signed a petition on signon.org to revoke Taylor’s appointment.

Monsanto proponents argue that the company’s work saves lives and increases agricultural efficiency. With products such as “drought-resistant” wheat sold to countries hard hit by the weather, some feel Monsanto’s intentions are genuine. However, it is using euphemisms to sugar-coat the poisonous nature of these genetically modified ingredients.

Monsanto?
The Natural Society, a group that delivers news on natural healing, voted Monsanto as Worst Company of 2011, due to Monsanto’s role in a litany of dirty deals. Chemicals such as Agent Orange, which was manufactured as a weapon during the Vietnam War, and the deadly pesticide Roundup, are also Monsanto products.

Another one of their claims-to-fame has been pioneering genetically modified organisms, GMOs, as a staple of the American diet.

“It has been estimated that upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves – from soda to soup, crackers to condiments –- contain genetically engineered ingredients,” said the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit advocacy group that promotes sustainability and speaks against harmful food technologies.

“Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer,” according to Center for Food Safety. The Center says that, “the use of genetic engineering in agriculture will lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of all nongenetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material.”

Global

Monsanto’s work is toxic. No smoke and mirrors here. Monsanto’s sole contribution to society is death, wrapped up in a shiny package, marketed with buzz words like, “drought-resistant crops.” At what cost?

Michael Taylor
During his time with Monsanto in the 90s, Taylor oversaw the integration of genetically modified organisms into the U.S. food supply. He went to great lengths to block testing to weigh any potential safety risks to the population or the environment.

According to a recent Washington Post article, between 1991-94 he also managed Monsanto’s policies with the infamous GM bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or simply put: dairy, literally, on steroids. Monsanto lobbied to ban labels advertising dairy as being rBGH-free to prevent competition from organic dairy farmers, but failed. Consumers can pick up a gallon of milk today in the grocery store and can be more informed to make healthier decisions based on labels declaring certain dairy rBGH-free.

NPR reported about the “Green Revolution” implemented in India, where policymakers in the U.S. convinced India into opting out of their “antiquated” farming practices and switch to using high-yield crops, pesticides and irrigation practices. Now, there are throngs of Indian farmers who are broke from the infrastructure set up to farm the “right way.” They’re falling ill from the exposure to the toxic chemicals and the soil is depleted of its nutrients from the accelerated crop lives.

Taylor’s work with the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations to infiltrate African markets pushed GMO seeds into their food supply, as well, according to the Organic Consumers Association.

In a paper titled “American Patent Policy, Biotechnology and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy Change,” Taylor says: “The Green Revolution largely bypassed sub-Saharan Africa. African farmers often face difficult growing conditions, and better access to the basic Green Revolution tools of fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds and irrigation certainly can play an important role in improving their productivity.”

He goes on to describe natural African farming as “archaic, near-subsistence agricultural economies” that need a “market-oriented approach and the promotion of thriving agribusinesses.”

Going into developing regions of the world such as India or Africa and “transforming” their agricultural practices with frakenseeds will only drive them into gripping debt and disease from their toxic crops.

Obama’s buddy at the FDA

The July 2009 appointment of Taylor as a food safety adviser for the FDA is a slap in the face to the American people. This is a blatant conflict of interest to employ a former executive of one of the most reprehensible companies responsible for illness, refuse and the breakdown of a cornerstone of American culture — agriculture.

It’s no surprise that there’s been an upsurge in peoples’ unrest with Taylor’s position. The ardent response to the signon.org  petition is a litmus test to the collective turbulence. It’s obvious: Don’t put people like Taylor in a position of power, who’s integrity and values are (in theory) diametrically opposed to the FDA, an organization designed to protect the public. Now that’s a concept!

Obama’s choice to let in a fox in the hen house is just another affirmation of where loyalties lie. The best interest of the people? What’s that again? Social responsibility? That’s cute.

Perhaps, it’s a boon to both Monsanto and the FDA. Lull the public into a false sense of security, appoint a good ol’ boy and just like that; no more pesky regulatory policies holding Monsanto back. It’s a win-win.

Lucky us, more synthetic compounds, self-producing pesticide produce and genetically manipulated products!

Mmmm! It’s what’s for breakfast!

Thanks, Obama!

Federal laws regulating who can access this information and for what purpose haven’t been updated to keep pace with current technology.

If your cell phone is turned on, your location is registered with cell towers every few minutes and many cell service providers keep records of where you have been. If your phone or some other device is GPS enabled, people other than you can keep track of where you are, often without your knowledge or permission. Police are gaining access to this geolocation data without having to obtain a search warrant.

If that idea doesn’t sound creepy to you, it should.

The Supreme Court addressed a specific issue involving warrantless GPS tracking on Jan. 23 in the case of United States v. Jones. A lower court had overturned the 2008 drug trafficking conviction of Antoine Jones, because police obtained the GPS tracking evidence used to convict him without a warrant.  The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision by ruling that police cannot attach a GPS tracking device to your car without a warrant.

However, the justices were divided in their reasons for coming to this conclusion  and explained their reasons in three separate opinions, detailing why they decided what they did as well as what they did not decide.

According to the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, police violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure by placing the GPS device on his car without a warrant.

“The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” Scalia said. “We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”

However, does the same privacy standard apply when obtaining your personal information in ways that do not involve a physical trespass, such as using your GPS enabled smart phone to track your location?

“It may be that achieving the same result through electronic  means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy,” Scalia said. “But the present case does not require us to answer that question.”

However, this question needs to be answered.  Should we wait for another case to come before the Supreme Court to let them decide our electronic privacy rights?

As someone who considers himself a liberal on most issues, I found it ironic that I agreed with the opinion of conservative justice Scalia, which was touted by conservative Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts.  Although liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor essentially agreed with Scalia’s majority opinion, she wrote her own opinion to include privacy issues she felt it important to raise.

According to the minority opinion, the police did not cross a line by attaching a GPS monitoring device to Jones’ car without a warrant, but it was the length of time police monitored him (a month) that violated Jones’ privacy rights.  Evidently, according to this opinion, a few days would have been OK.

The minority opinion was written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, and joined by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.  I found some of the language in this position disturbing.

“New technology may provide increased convenience or security at the expense of privacy, and many people may find the trade-off worthwhile,” stated the minority opinion.  “And even if the public does not welcome the diminution of privacy that new technology entails, they may eventually reconcile themselves to this development as inevitable.”

Justice Sotomayor took direct issue with this stance in her opinion, writing, “Justice Alito notes, some people may find the ‘tradeoff’ of privacy for convenience ‘worthwhile,’ or come to accept this ‘diminution of privacy’ as ‘inevitable,’ and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the government of a list of every website (for example) they had visited in the last week, or month, or year.”

We don’t know what this court might decide about what privacy rights we do or do not have with our electronic devices that keep track of where we are or have been.  We shouldn’t leave it up to them.

Last summer, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (“GPS”) Act. This Bill would provide clear rules for how law enforcement, businesses, and private citizens can access and use your GPS tracking data.

According to a summary on Wyden’s website, the GPS Act would “require law enforcement agencies to get a warrant when they want to acquire an individual’s geolocation information from a private company” and  “require warrants when law enforcement agencies want to monitor individuals’ movements directly, using covertly installed tracking devices or similar means.”  In emergency situations,  law enforcement officers would be allowed to obtain the information that they need immediately and then obtain a warrant later.

The GPS Act makes sense because it is modeled after federal wiretapping statutes makes sense.

Wyden and Chaffetz are right in stating, “…surreptitiously turning an individual’s cell phone into a tracking device without their knowledge has a substantial privacy impact, just like tapping that person’s phone or searching that person’s house.”

Contact your congresspersons and petition to enact this legislation into law.

PRO

by Wynter Eddins

Two years ago, Derrik Burts entered the porn industry, appearing in both homosexual and heterosexual films. Just months into the business, he contracted the Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and told the Los Angeles Times in an interview that he contracted it from a “known positive” actor during a scene.

Burts is not alone. According to the 2010 Annual HIV Surveillance Report by the Public Health department of County of Los Angeles , nearly 26,000 people today are living with AIDS within Los Angeles County, compared to the 15,000 cases just 10 years ago.

The new condom ordinance should have been enacted years ago. The San Fernando Valley is the nation’s porn capitol, and according to New York Daily News, California and New Hampshire are the only places where pornography production is not considered prostitution by the federal supreme court.

Since the law was enacted, adult film production companies are threatening to move out of Los Angeles, claiming that condoms would decrease viewers. Steven Hirsh, founder of the adult film company Vivid Entertainment, told the LA Times in an interview that if he were to move the company out of California he wouldn’t have to worry about the new ordinance.

In most pornographic films, the actors don’t wear condoms. The reason, according to Hirsch, is because the viewers would get distracted. Hirsch says viewers are more interested in the fantasy aspect in the films.

However, the danger inherent in unsafe sex in adult films is more important than viewers’ preferences. Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported 17 cases of contracted HIV involving porn actors, according to public officials. Besides HIV, STDs are a risk according to Shelly Luben a former adult actress who stated on her website, Pink Cross Foundation that she contracted HPV which led to cervical cancer performing in 30 films. California Watch, a news website founded by the center for Investigative Reporting,  reported in 2010 that the number of people in the adult entertainment industry who are actually infected with HIV remains unknown, since in gay adult films, the actors are not required to be tested for HIV.

It may be more enticing to watch films where there are no condoms present, but the reality is that an increasing number of people in the industry are exposed to STDs.

The nearly $5 billion porn industry has a large influence on its viewers, and with more than half of the profits coming from online, the videos are accessible to nearly everyone.  Forbes magazine indicates that every second, nearly $4,000 is being spent on the industry, and every 40 minutes, another pornographic movie is being created.

According to statistics from the Los Angeles Department of Health, those in the industry are 10 times more likely to contract an STD than other members of the population. The spread of AIDS is on the rise, specifically in Los Angeles County, and the adult industry is important in creating awareness considering the number of viewers. Porn star Ron Jeremy told the Daily Beast that he was tested every 28 days for HIV and other STDs, but the worry is when the actors have multiple sexual partners in a day, monthly testing is not enough.

The usage of condoms in the industry could also be a positive message to those who view it regularly. If the argument is that the viewer would prefer that no condom be present, then there is a solution. There are already talks of creating an “invisible condom” according to The Globe and Mail news site, which could possible serve as an alternative to the condoms used today. The adult industry can promote safe sex, and still keep its viewers.

The city of Los Angles is trying to protect the health of those who partake in a large industry and make it a bit safer. The agencies should be held accountable each time a video is aired, and if the actors are not wearing condoms then actions should be taken.

Condoms ensure that those in the industry are practicing safe sex. Just as doctors are required to wear gloves, those in the porn industry should have to wear protection. Those in the industry should be grateful that the law cares about their health. If this law was not enacted, stories like Burts’ would become reality for many others.

Wynter is a junior communications majoring in communications, minoring in journalism and VP of Radio Television Digital News Association and is a member of the CSUN Speech and Debate Team.

CON

by Jack Harryman

Mr. Villaraigosoa did not choose this battle out of the blue; the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has been lobbying for the law to be passed for several years. The question is, will the new law ensure a safer working environment for these adult actors and actresses? It depends on whom you ask.  Many porn stars believe that the law will simply cause the porn industry to move outside the boundaries of Los Angeles County and into the underground, creating a far more dangerous and unregulated work place.

Porn actress Ela Darling stated, in the AVN article More Performers Speak Out Against Cal/OSHA Sanctions, “As an individual and as a performer, I would rather have unprotected sex with someone whom I know for sure has been tested for HIV, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia in the past thirty days, than have barrier-protected sex with someone whose STD status is either unknown or positive.”

Until May last year, the Adult Industry Medical Center ran mandatory nationwide STD testing services that certified performers as STD-free before they began working. Michael Weinstein, head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, backed a lawsuit against the Adult Industry Medical Center, putting the AIMC out of business and leaving a vacuum in the health and safety sector of the industry. Perhaps Weinstein believed that by ridding the industry of any health protection services, legislators would be forced to pass the ordinance.

Many of these pornographic performers and producers, like Ela Darling, have nothing against the usage of condoms in their films, but rather oppose regulation of condom use throughout the state or city because it does not necessarily guarantee the decrease of HIV and AIDS in the industry. This makes the $4.4 million ordinance, paid with taxpayer money, one big failure in ending the spread of HIV and AIDS.

Just like the movie industry, the adult film industry is taxed on every movie they make. The adult film industry, as a whole, is a multibillion dollar industry. Currently 90% of all pornographic films are made in Los Angeles County. If the porn industry moves, is the city of Los Angeles really prepared to lose the tax revenue from a multimillion dollar industry at a time when the state of California is on the verge of bankruptcy?

But not only is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation spending Los Angeles and California’s scarce financial resources, they are also squandering their own funds. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has spent millions of dollars putting an ordinance in place, yet the ordinance only encompasses one city.  That money could have been spent on HIV and AIDS education or research, which would benefit numerous counties across the state.

Furthermore, according to adult film performer and director Lorelei Lee, during the decade in which the Adult Industry Medical Center was up and running, only six out of thousands of performers tested positive for HIV and AIDS, and only three of them contracted their diseases on the set. Studies from the International Planned Parenthood Federation show that condoms are only 80% effective against the spread of HIV or AIDS, while testing is nearly 100% accurate. Despite the facts, Weinstein insists on advocating condoms over testing.

Besides the backing of the ordinance being a complete waste of resources, it does something far more sinister—it legislates morality and in doing so, forces needless government intrusion on the lives of private citizens.

Individuals of consenting legal age video taping their sexual escapades can and should understand what they’re getting themselves into by engaging in what amounts to private, consensual sexual activities. As free citizens of the United States of America, we should take responsibility for our actions instead of resorting to criminalization and government enforcement to do it for us. Do we really need one more law that forces us to put a jacket on in the rain?

Jack is a sophomore majoring in geology and is a member of the CSUN Speech and Debate team.

In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association is scheduled to make changes regarding the diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome, Autistic Disorder and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). The APA is hoping to put all three disorders under the broad diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), effectively eliminating the diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome and PDD-NOS.

The changes come as the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is scheduled to come out next year.Experts agree that the narrowed definition would effectively eliminate qualification for 85 percent of children and adults with PDD-NOS and two-thirds of children and adults with Asperger’s. Analysis conducted by Dr. Fred R. Volkmer of Yale states it would effectively get rid of those with a higher-function diagnosis and the effect on services could be quite drastic.

As someone who has Asperger’s syndrome, I find this highly offensive to lump people with Asperger’s, classic autism and PDD-NOS. This is a disastrously bad idea that could cut off essential services to over a million children and adults who depend on those services for their success and well-being.
While I admire the efforts of the neuro-diversity movement to not pathologize behaviorial differences, these changes will only add more stigma to those who will no longer qualify for diagnosis and will further inhibit their success in life.
In truth, all the psychological and clinical definitions, and personal anecdotes still fail to fully describe the world of an Aspie (someone with Asperger’s syndrome).

It is as if the world you live in is inhabited by aliens from another planet who speak a language unrecognizable to the ear. The rules are never clear and the line is always moving and you can never know when anything you’ve done is right.

At this point in my life, social interactions are difficult, not so much because people are mean or misunderstanding, but because it’s always hard to measure the right way to react even when it is seemingly obvious to most others. Even the most mundane of conversations can be excruciatingly difficult. I always fear that I am going to get hurt if I interact and often feel physically unsafe when I have to interact, even with those who I know quite well.
Because of their differences and sometimes odd behavior and interests, children and adults with Asperger’s are likely victims of bullying. With an inability to understand why people are being so mean, it will only encourage them to recede further into themselves and prevent them from having positive social interactions later in life.

It has been said that often the reason some autistic people are so high functioning is because of access to helpful services. It has been proven that early intervention can combat much of the social dysfunction that comes with all three diagnoses. With the inability to diagnose higher-functioning children, problems will go unnoticed and multiply, as often happens to people with Asperger’s.

Another issue with the proposed changes concerns proper identification of needed services and treatment. If the goal of the new diagnosis is to save money and resources, good luck, because that will be a huge failure. With the inability to identify the level of function that a child is at and specify what services might be needed, services may be provided unnecessarily, and the necessary ones will not be available.

Whether the changes are politically or economically motivated is irrelevant. What matters is that many children with Asperger’s and higher functioning autism feel completely isolated from their peers and have no idea why. If this continues to happen, the success rate of children with developmental disabilities will plummet. When these children are not understood and they cannot understand what others are thinking or feeling, their motivation decreases severely, and parents and teachers are left with the burden of not being able to help their students and children succeed and thrive in life.

I know from my own experiences that the services I received allowed me to be successful today. Without the recognition of my diagnosis, I frankly would not have the knowledge and the means to be able to rise above those differences that stigmatized me and made feel like an outcast in my own home and among peers.
Access to these services taught me that people with Asperger’s syndrome aren’t really that different, just differently-abled. I, like most Aspies, have problems understanding abstract concepts (meaning concepts and things that lie outside the reach and scope the five senses can provide).

For example, I flunked Algebra because I couldn’t see or feel anything or have a real world model to confirm a correct answer. I followed the rules, but I became very confused about which steps were which. On the other hand, I did very well in high school biology and got a grade of an A –, because I could physically feel and see the results of my work.

As a photojournalist, I know I can be successful because although words are harder for me than most others, pictures and visuals describe the world far better than words ever could.

I plead the APA not to go through with this change. Think of the over one million children and adults with Asperger’s and higher functioning forms of autism. Lumping together Asperger’s syndrome and PDD-NOS with autism will only make rates soar higher than they already are and will magnify many problems that these kids face, creating more unnecessary suffering.

If one wants to narrow the rates of autism there are far better ways to do it. One would be to not let schools decide whether or not the child in question has a developmental disability, but to leave that decision in the hands of patients and doctors.

Truth be told, this is not an easy science and narrowing the definition will make it harder for everyone to live the life they want. It is a bad idea that will only make the autism epidemic and the consequences associated with it, far worse than they already are.

Courtesy Gabriel Ivan Orendain-Necochea / Visual Editor

It was that great philosopher of our time—Chef from South Park—who reminded us that “There’s a time and place for everything—and it’s called college.”

Well, here’s the corollary to Professor Chef’s postulate—there’s a time and place for college as well. At least a time. And that time is from about 18 to 21 years old. Go ahead, give or take a year. But beyond that, things can get…difficult. What I’m trying to say is: Don’t be me.

Back in ye olden days when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and before there was even a Facebook—the horror!—Young Jim McLauchlin was matriculating through the University of Minnesota. Lucky me, between that magic combination of a federal grant, state grant, university grant, student loan, and a part-time job at Target, I was able to scrape by with minimal forays into the world of Kraft macaroni and cheese and, like, no ramen.

Trust me: In 1987, it was a badge of pride if you didn’t have to stoop to ramen.

Then, between sophomore and junior years, I got a nice letter from the feds telling me that since I had earned $7000 in the previous year, well, I really didn’t need their financial aid any longer. Or that pesky loan. The state followed suit, and the university sure didn’t want to be left out of the party.

I staggered trough one financially bruising semester, did the “Hey, if I water down ketchup in the pan I can call it tomato soup!” exactly once, and threw in the towel. Told myself I’d get a job, sock away some dough, and come back and finish up someday soon.

“Someday soon” came 23 years later. I entered the mighty CSUN as a junior—after taking two classes at Los Angeles Valley College to fill in some prerequisites we didn’t even have back in dinosaur days (tho’ I did excel in Mammoth Clubbing 101 and RRAGH! Fire! Back in the day—you can see my transcripts).

Now. Before ranging too far down the pity path, lemme state unequivocally and for the record that it’s my choice to be here. The occasional university administrator is kind enough to remind me of this as well when I point out some policy that seems a bit odd or obtuse. They frequently even point to the door to guide my way should I not like the status quo.

But yeah, things are a little difficult. The central problem is as simple as time. And once again, unequivocally and for the record, I understand that’s a constraint common to all college students juggling multiple responsibilities. But the central difference, I believe, is this:

When you’re that 18-to-21-year old college student, you can, by and large, be that college student as the central part of your life. The job waiting tables at Olive Garden falls into the periphery. By the time you’re 43 creaking years old, well…I’ve got a job, freelance work, a wife, a kid, and then school. I also like to find some time to sleep and drink whiskey in there, too. (Note to self: Whiskey can help you sleep. Two birds, one stone, and all that.) School becomes a peripheral part of life, as much as I might like it to be otherwise.

Having had the (geez, does it sound pretentious to say this?) “benefit of experience,” my nickel’s worth of free advice to anyone who might be in my circa-1988 position is this: Constant forward motion. Heavy on the “constant.” I really, really wish I would have had the wisdom, the foresight, the balls, or whatever it was at the time to have just taken one night class per semester and keep moving.

“Someday soon” rarely comes. I know I’m actually fortunate to have found a way back. Barroom floors and tabletop gaming stores are littered with tales of “coulda-beens” and “almost-weres.”

I think I’ve dodged that bullet. Or at least I’m on the path.

So there you go. There’s a time and place for college. For 90% of you reading this, it’s now. Recognize this. Take advantage. If things slide, there’s no shame in taking one night class at community college until things level out. Your lesson for the day: Constant forward motion is your friend.

Or, put perhaps more simply: Just don’t be me.

—Jim McLauchlin is an honest-to-God 43-year old man working on a bachelor’s degree. Scary as that may seem. Don’t be him.

What other CSUN-related apps would you like to see available?

If there is one thing that I have made a promise to do (and have thus far kept) it is to not smoke. I plan to live a long, heart and lung disease-free life.

However, I cannot imagine a world where I need to share company or a classroom with someone who cannot be granted their ashy relaxer when much needed.

The UC system has recently put a ban on smoking on their campuses that will take effect over the next two years. Earlier last semester, the student organization, Campuses Organized and United for Good Health (COUGH), petitioned to ban smoking at CSUN.

The freedom to smoke should not be eliminated on our campus, but restricted to designated smoking areas or zones.
Now, you may ask why someone like me, who knows about the health risks associated with smoking, would support the cause to allow it to continue on campus.

Lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and emphysema are just a few of the many diseases connected to smoking. Second-hand smoking can cause just as many health risks and in many cases, can often kill.

No smokers, I am not preaching to you and I do not discriminate against your personal choice to smoke. I understand your dire need to take a chill pill in a stressful situation or even when you are just drunk. The habit is simple to understand – smoking is an addiction and those who choose to start the habit can find it extremely hard to end, even if they are aware of the health risks and make the decision on their own to quit.

This is not to say, however, that those who love their bodies and their health should be put at risk everywhere they go by those who choose to slowly kill their lungs. Instead of eliminating smoking completely, we should limit the negative effects by creating designated smoking areas around campus where he/she with a distaste for smoking knows not to enter.

Yes, I get it COUGH, none of you condone smoking and I’m sure it’s for reasons similar to mine: you enjoy living.
However, this zeal to clear our air favors one bad habit over another. Why is it that alcohol, a substance that can physically and mentally alter a person’s actions, something that can be much more dangerously abused, is allowed on campus? The Pub doesn’t serve hard liquor, but a beer can lead to another one and can lead to much worse than a cigarette.

No one on campus is telling the drinkers whether or not they can get inebriated, so why should someone tell the smokers how much they can smoke?

I would never want to put myself at risk of being next to a smoker in class after being refused a quick cigarette break. Have you ever been around someone who can’t have a much-needed cig?

I dare you to sit in a room full of student smokers who just came from a two-hour long lecture about microscopic organisms living in our backyards, been given 80 pages of reading over the weekend after they fought with their boyfriend or girlfriend and tell them not to have their regular substance which calms them down.

Go ahead and give me a call after your migraine has gone away from listening to their bitching and moaning.

As of right now, smoking is not allowed in buildings, state-owned vehicles or within 20 feet of campus buildings. I would not reject, as I’m sure smokers would concur, selected sectioned-off areas around campus where smoking is prohibited. Maybe smokers can make smoking friends there. It’s a win-win for everyone.

So, non-smokers, do me and yourselves and favor and think before pissing off the smokers. I wouldn’t want to be one of you in that situation.

Since then, broadcasters have pushed limits with profanity and nudity, and the FCC has pushed back by imposing fines for content it judged indecent.  The courts have played referee in this convoluted battle, sometimes siding with broadcasters, and sometimes backing the FCC.  It’s a battle that continues to this day.

In early January, ABC and Fox argued before the Supreme Court that the FCC unfairly fined them for broadcasts of profanity and nudity.  The FCC claimed it had the right to impose fines for incidents such as when Cher said “fuck ‘em” at the 2002 Billboard Awards and also for a 2003 broadcast of a naked woman’s buttocks in an “NYPD Blue” episode.  Fox and ABC argued that moral standards have changed, and that the FCC regulations are too vague, and that fines were imposed arbitrarily.

Fox and ABC have a point. There have been several other incidents where the FCC didn’t impose fines for profanity and nudity,  such as in broadcasts of  ”Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List.” Furthermore, the FCC does not actually have a list of prohibited words or images.

The FCC’s definition for indecency  comes from the 1978 Supreme Court case FCC v. Pacifica Foundation in which Pacifica radio was sued for broadcasting Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” comedy routine. The court suggested indecency is “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast media, sexual or excretory activities or organs.”  This doesn’t give broadcasters a clear definition of what is or is not OK to broadcast.

The narrow question the Supreme Court must decide is whether the FCC fairly imposed fines against Fox and ABC. But the larger question is whether it still makes sense to hold the four TV broadcast networks to a different standard of decency than cable, satellite TV and the Internet.

I agree with Justice Samuel Alito who said that the FCC’s rules apply to such a dwindling fraction of the media landscape that perhaps they should be allowed to “die a natural death.”

Holding broadcast television to a different standard than cable or the Internet no longer makes sense.

The number of people who still receive television from a signal broadcast over the airwaves is dwindling toward non-existence.  Many TV viewers no longer understand the difference between the broadcast networks, Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS, and  the hundreds of other channels packaged with their cable or satellite service.

Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts said that the broadcast networks should still provide a safe haven where parents can be assured their children will not be exposed to nudity or profanity during prime time.

However, there is no such thing as a safe haven. Children will hear George Carlin’s seven words and see naked bodies, on TV or elsewhere, no matter what the Supreme Court decides about the FCC’s regulations of broadcast media.  That was true even in the good-old-days when there were a handful of wholesomely regulated TV channels.  The reasons why broadcast TV has been held to different standards than cable are outdated.  The Supreme Court should end this double-standard.

The reader’s voice is important to us at the Daily Sundial and we value your opinions about our content. The Letter to the Editor is a way for you to let us know how you feel about a story, photo or multimedia we publish, as well as address anything going on in the CSUN community.

Here are our guidelines:
1. Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words. Shorter letters have a
better chance of being selected for publication.
2. Please include your full name and major or title if you are a CSUN student or staff and a mailing address and daytime phone number for verification. We will publish your name, city of residence and major/title only.
3. Send thoughtful, well-written individual letters only. We do not accept letters that
are addressed to more than one recipient or that are part of letter-writing
campaigns.
4. Do not send attachments of any kind, including signatures–you can paste the letter directly into the email. Do not send advertisements or spam.
5. Letters may be edited. They become the property of the Daily Sundial and may be republished in any format.