Silencing the "Freedoms"

I'm all for freedoms. Freedom of press, expression, speech; the list goes on and on. About the only thing I'm MORE for than personal freedoms is logic and sanity. Sometimes, especially today with some of the nutjobs walking this earth, sanity and logic trumps freedom. That brings us to the ongoing debate about everyone's good friend Rev. Terry Jones and his "International Burn-a-Qur'an" day atrocity/scam.

Not since the Westboro Baptist Church has a previously-inconsequential church from East Jabip taken the nation by storm, doing everything that anyone calling themselves a church of God shouldn't: indiscriminately spewing hatred, filth, and lies about and upon others. Yet this time, they've upped the anti. No longer are these "Christians" (and I use that term extremely loosely) simply tormenting the relatives of our heroic departed soldiers. No, no, that's child's play for this flock of 50 followers. Rev. Jones has taken it upon himself to insult an entire religion full of people, including a select few groups of which are already proven fans of killing Americans. L. Ron Hubbard couldn't make these scenarios up, I swear.

All apologies to my Muslim friends for specifically focusing on the extremist groups amongst the religion (and I suppose to my Christian friends that they should be even remotely affiliated with organizations such as the Dove World Outreach Center), but focus is needed here. Credit to the scores of world leaders and other notables who have outright condemned this Qur'an burning nonsense. But the most telling rebuke comes from General David Petraeus in Afghanistan, paraphrased but essentially in so many words:

Doing this is creating a direct elevated threat to American lives.

Petraeus refers not only to the troops overseas but also all of us on the homefront as well. There is no telling what images from such an inflammatory act will cause in response. Now of course, comes the decision point. America's valued freedoms dictate that in theory, Rev. Jones is still within his rights to hold this preposterous event. Sanity and logic dictate otherwise, naturally. Who in their right mind would willingly put others to the sword (or best case the greatly heightened risk of the sword) for the sake of ideology? We all know the answer to that: Terrorists/Extremists.

There of course are two ways to respond to this. The first is for the government to act against this terrorist threat (which you might say Rev. Jones is not, but clearly by logical argument we've just demonstrated otherwise) under any and all applicable acts currently active under United States law, the USA PATRIOT Act for example. Consider the following piece from Title VIII of the act, which encompasses:

Activities that are..."dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;" and/or are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population;"

Further insight into Title VIII shows that this would be very difficult to achieve legally, simply due to the act's definition of "supporting terrorism" focusing on the harboring those involved or actual monetary support fronts rather than just incitement. But consider the earlier point:

Who in their right mind would willingly put others to the sword (or best case the greatly heightened risk of the sword) for the sake of ideology? We all know the answer to that: Terrorists/Extremists.

Surely this psychological warfare will cause United States losses, if not in casualty counts than in monetary loss from reacting to increased threat levels due to the riled extremist support in the Middle East. There have been hoards of complaints about losses of individual freedoms under the PATRIOT Act and other government actions since 9/11, but it seems to me that in this case the "freedoms" of Rev. Jones and participants have been flaunted long past the point of legal expression and speech, and revocation is justly deserved. There is a significant difference here between say, flag burning, and this act. Flag burning, while by no means commendable, simply expresses displeasure with in-house leadership. Terry Jones's actions express nothing more than indiscriminate hate and intolerance -- a neo-crusade that pits extreme ideologies against one another with the tolerant, centrist masses caught in the middle (and via violence in the wake).

A second option (and one even less likely than the first to be enacted), is to essentially suspend freedom of press for the event. Obama, Clinton, and every other world leader to exist can come out and condemn the actions, but at the end of the day it's free press for Rev. Jones. To quote a friend who commented on the issue, the Qur'an burning has got "media circus written all over it." Entirely true, of course, unless the government were to step in and demand networks give the scam the amount of coverage it deserves -- zero.

Now, the ACLU and liberal fanatics out there would likely lambaste my viewpoints, claiming that they simply "open the door for further restriction of individual freedoms." But I ask each and every one of you to once more consider the logical side of things before jumping on the freedom at all costs bandwagon. Have you been affected by the PATRIOT Act outside of increased scrutiny at airports? Have you been noticeably denied any freedoms you enjoyed prior to 9/11?
For 99.9% of us, the answer is surely "no," which is exactly how it should be, and would continue to be following any action upon Rev. Jones. Why? Because as I've stated before, this Qur'an burning classifies as terrorist activity. We the people -- the tolerant, progressive, accepting people amongst the citizens of the United States -- do not engage in such cowardly and hateful actions, therefore we are but minorly inconvenienced by stricter laws and securities in the post-9/11 world. My challenge to society therefore, is to let my post here be the last story about Rev. Jones for the rest of time.

As we head into the 9th anniversary of September 11th, we should all reflect upon the sacrifices of the victims, including those within the events, the soldiers who fought in the aftermath, and the families and friends of the above. We should celebrate our freedoms as a vital part of American life and take the utmost advantage of them. But we should also be mindful to think logically and see events as they really are.

Who in their right mind would willingly put others to the sword for the sake of ideology? There can be, and will always be only one answer.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Title_VIII:_Terrorism_criminal_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act,_Title_VIII

The Daily Gripe: Educational Programming and IP Licensing

As most of you have heard, the last butterfly was plucked from the sky yesterday as Reading Rainbow went off the air following a 26 year run on PBS. Various excuses were given for the show's shutdown, which was already in syndication for the past 3 years due to contractual and financing issues back in 2006. You can view articles on the subject at sources I'll provide at the bottom of this article. However, I'd like to focus on one point with a quote from Wikipedia.

It was announced on August 25, 2009 that the show will end its run on PBS on August 28, 2009 after 26 years; its removal from the lineup was due to WNED lacking funds to renew the rights to the books featured on the program.

In today's day of television dominating the lives of American youth, what imbecile really thinks parents are going to go out and willingly spend money to buy all of the books referenced/used in Reading Rainbow? Intellectual Property is all good and well, but does it really apply here?

I'm no marketing or sales expert, but I highly doubt that having Reading Rainbow on the air affects sales of the books it uses in any negative manner. Remember, library readership is irrelevant, because bottom lines aren't affected by kids seeing a book they love on the show and renting it from the library to re-read. I would argue that cancelling the show would actually reduce sales of the book.

Clearly though, it's not about that. The show has to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars in intellectual property rights to show these books. I ask, why the hell would you make Reading Rainbow do that, after all these years? I value intellectual property as much as the next man, but seriously: Children's book authors and corporate publishing in America, how mental are you people? The show is probably the only visibility your intellectual property even GETS in this country. Didn't you write children's books in the first place to encourage learning and the joy of reading and creativity and imagination and whatever else? But yet, you demand unreasonable sums of money to be funded by the taxpayers (doubly so if the taxpayer happens to be a "Viewer Like You" and donates to PBS as well) to continue educating the public? Shame on you, really.

As a Republican, it's very rare that I will rail on corporate America, but clearly the publishing companies have a stake in this too and are equally to blame. If I were an author of one of the books, I would step forward and give WNED of Buffalo and PBS as a whole free, infinite creative licensing to use the episode of the show containing my book. Otherwise, as someone who authored a piece of writing specifically designed to foster growth of young minds, I would be nothing short of a hypocrite. To hell with all you hypocritical children's authors out there and anyone else involved in this travesty.

Sources
Reading Rainbow - Wikipedia
NPR - Reading Rainbow Reaches Its Final Chapter

The Daily Gripe: Fair Housing Act

The Fair Housing Act is a joke. I will update this post with more details as I complete my research, but take my word for it.

Michael Vick to the Eagles

In the wake of Michael Vick's apparent signing with the Philadelphia Eagles, I felt that the team's popular fight song, which fortunately has been squelched at Citizens Bank Park thanks to the Phillies being awesome, should get a little revamp. So here it is, in all it's unabashed, politically incorrect glory:

Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to dogfighting (fight fight fight).
Fly Eagles Fly, kill some canines 1-2-3.
Bite 'em low, Bite 'em high, then watch that doggy die.
Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to dogfighting!
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!

Yes, I just came up with it in two seconds. Yes, it's in cynical jest. You know someone had to do it. Embrace the political incorrectness people. Embrace it.

The Daily Gripe: Commuter Rail Power Deficiency

As most everyone that doesn't live under a rock knows, the majority of commuter rail in this country is powered by overhead high-voltage catenary wiring, or, for the dumbest 5% out there -- electricity. Yet even as companies like NJ Transit, Metro-North Commuter Railroad, and the Connecticut Department of Transportation make much needed upgrades to rail cars via new purchases, there is still a major element missing: power outlets.

Despite the relatively short distance of commuter rail service in time length, what possibly possessed these companies to continue the practice of only installing emergency plugs at either end of select cars? Surely most laptops are healthy enough to make your 2 hour at most trip to/from work on battery power, but the service would be a nice convenience, even if only in a few seats with more accessible plugs. Let provide a short recap of the current requirements for laptop power on commuter rail in the Northeast:

NJ Transit: last seat of selected coaches, right by the door, typically a cramped two seater behind a 3-person bench.

Metro-North: typically a power outlet at the ends of each coach (less of a guarantee on the newer cars), but the majority don't work and frequently plugs must be in the walkway or in a non-existent seat/space being used by the conductor which is not allowed.

ConnDoT: Same situation location wise as Metro-North, far lower successful power rate from available outlets

I understand that these are trains designed for short-range trips with minimal time length. I also understand that currently only a select few users will engage their laptops on the commute. However, if you're making a New Haven to New York run for example, that's nearly 2 hours of travel time (appx. 100 minutes). Certainly something can be accomplished in that block of time. Eventually WiFi will be the standard for all travel options (the commuter arm of the Boston T service is already demoing this option). This will only increase frequency of computer use aboard commuter rail. Why not be proactive about providing outlets?

Let me just say, Amtrak is not immune from this either. Amtrak's oower plugs are not what I can complain about, as their cars are wonderfully designed with the computer-toting traveler in mind -- a plug for every seat. For the regional service, I'm now hoping it is a short time (or no time at all if possible) for beginning installations of WiFi aboard trains, even if we must suffer the indignity of payment for the service. As long as it's not too high (read as: no more than $5 trip or $1/hr, not some of the crazy outlandish hotel price patterns of $9.99 and $12.99 a day), the majority of laptop users (which is already a near majority if not a majority of overall passengers on Amtrak trains, especially in the Northeast Corridor) will buy into the program.

WiFi-included travel is the future of travel as we know it. More and more transit options are making it easier for riders to stay connected. Greyhound is unveiling new buses with outlets and free WiFi. Boston's T is doing the same with its WiFi program. Airlines are even picking up on the trend. It will be key for Amtrak and the majority of local commuter rail to keep with the times, or ridership could suffer. That's less of a danger for commuter rail obviously, but in a world that is more and more dependent on connectivity, the least you could do is share your overhead power source.