Radio’s Regulatory Roadblocks – How the FCC slows new wireless technologies

Fear not, solutions are discussed as well. A very solid article that escapes harsh criticism and presents the facts in an easily digestible form.

—

You Commit Three Felonies a Day

“Early in 1774, Benjamin Franklin reported the British government’s harsh reaction to a petition he had presented on behalf of the Massachusetts Assembly: “Grievances cannot be redressed unless they are known; and they cannot be known but through complaints and petitions: If these are deemed as affronts, and the messengers punished as offenders, who will henceforth send petitions?” Franklin, the founder of American libraries, understood that threats to freedom are much more likely to come from those in power who won’t hear criticism than from private citizens who want a hearing.”

The quotation harvested from another wsj article on book banning that initially got my engine revving about decrying censorship, but ended up making sense of the issue in a way I hadn’t anticipated. The issue is an important one, to preserve free speech and press, and I’m glad organizations monitor this behavior because the Written Word has always been an effective weapon when used correctly. The article initially met my content expectation. It acknowledged the generally unsuccessful nature of book banning, how the main proponents are small groups that make a lot of noise for a while but generally get shut down, and it described the tenacity of the ALA. At the same time, it described certain issues where language was obfuscating meaning.

The notion of equating the danger/inaccessibility of banned books to other banned items never really occurred to me before. Perhaps, with the rise of the internet the issue has been mitigated somewhat by the availability of all natures of content. And it seems to me all these books that get challenged or banned are critical smashes/get extra publicity from the attempted banning. Not to say that on a smaller level, library by library, especially in less than affluent communities, these grassroots efforts have the potential for more success. We saw our friendly pastor at Jesus Camp tell us Harry Potter would’ve been executed (again, if he were real) for witchcraft.

It seems like both political affiliations in this country are quick to accuse the other of a lack of patriotism in matters of disagreement, Hermann Goering said it best at Nuremberg:
“Naturally the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

It certainly worked after 9/11. One senator voted against the PATRIOT ACT (yes it’s an acronym. holy shit.), but nationalism is fond of binary and it’s a very us or them mentality. It used to work that way with familiar GOP culture war topics like prayer in schools or gay marriage. But, in times of financial hardship, it’s hard to whip up those culture wars as easily as when people are successful and able to worry about more minor issues. Culture war was a big part of the last Republican Presidential campaign. Which reminds me, Sarah Palin is releasing a (coloring) book, a memoir about her life that we should assume is nearly complete since it’s memoir time… right?

The new vogue trend apparently, is to take down the story when it’s only halfway done, perhaps in a Half Life 2-esque chapter fashion, so people don’t have to read the whole thing at the end of your time on earth. Especially when the title is GOING ROGUE?!?!?! What a load of fucking bullshit. Mrs. Palin is a curious example of how language can obfuscate meaning in another sense. In this case, it’s seemingly good intentions hidden behind a poor public speaker. What made things worse for candidates in this last election is how thorough critics are. Every speech was transcribed and copied and every quote was spread far and wide from the beginning of the campaign to the bitter end. It was easier to gradually change positions in years past since coverage wasn’t as in depth or far reaching.

I don’t understand the fascination with her. I don’t understand why months after Barack Obama was elected (for better OR worse) that Dick Cheney was on Meet the Press. Who gives half a fuck? I don’t remember Dan Quayle still on the press circuit in 1993, we had a new VP and we were done with the old. The same trend appears further and further we go. Al Gore struck out on his own and started working on the environment which earns him recognition for that venture. Bill Clinton started a robust Post-Presidency that is on track to rival Jimmy Carter’s (90+ years old still working for peace. Wonderful. He got a raw deal in 1980.)

Sarah Palin was an ineffectual ballot-stuffer (so to speak) that got tacked on to John McCain’s campaign to appeal to the old center of the party. The democrats did the same damn thing with Biden, I know. The twin mavericks out for justice. I never witnessed the intelligence or charm her supporters were able to perceive. Also, if the presidency of bush II taught us anything, it’s that people who are just that casual are probably not fit for leadership. I am not of the impression that my PRESIDENT should remind me of someone I’d watch the game with. I don’t want to have a buddy buddy president, I want someone who is ferociously intelligent and well-spoken. That is a better start, to me, than a strong religious core (we saw it in palin, she even has an evangelical minister coauthoring her book. I bet that’ll mean lots of bible trivia instead of the usual “find the word” and connect-the-dots types of activities) or someone who feels like a drinking partner. Especially not Connecticut-born men with texas accents.

I didn’t see any leadership qualities. I didn’t see a single positive reason to vote for her. Some people did. Some conservative pundits would tell you she’s the best bet for the party’s nomination in 2012. What reason? She believes god gives her the answers? Is that a theocracy? I don’t know if she’s less crazy than Huckabee, I don’t know why Ron Paul can’t decide between libertarian and republican. He’s fucked on both sides, cause if he goes 3rd party he’ll never get elected but he’d never align with enough real libs cause of his pronounced stance on abortion.

[The English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate not because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

– George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946

A similar example was brought to me when I was viewing an episode of Penn & Tellers’ Bullshit regarding pornography. The anti-pornography side was well invested in equating pornography to rape, and if it wasn’t a direct synonym, it was part of the same causal path. The show really focused on how abuse of the word rape cheapens the tragedy involved. Language obfuscating meaning. I understand their simile is based in the severity of the situation, but it’s two completely different things. More to come…