E-Tracking
Drivers in the US
Trust federal bureaucrats to take a
good idea and transform it into a
frightening proposal to track
Americans wherever they drive.
The U.S. Department of
Transportation has been handing
millions of dollars to state
governments for GPS-tracking
pilot projects designed to track
vehicles wherever they go. So far,
Washington state and Oregon
have received fat federal checks
to figure out how to levy these
"mileage-based road user fees."
Now electronic tracking and taxing
may be coming to a DMV near you.
The Office of Transportation Policy
Studies, part of the Federal
Highway Administration, is about to
announce another round of grants
totaling some $11 million. A
spokeswoman on Friday said the
office is "shooting for the end of
the year" for the announcement,
and more money is expected for
GPS (Global Positioning System)
tracking efforts.
In principle, the idea of what
bureaucrats like to call "value
pricing" for cars makes sound
economic sense.
Airlines and hotels have long
charged less for off-peak use. Toll
roads would be more efficient--in
particular, less congested--if they
could follow the same model and
charge virtually nothing in the
middle of the night but high prices
during rush hour.
That price structure would
encourage drivers to take public
transportation, use alternate
routes, or leave earlier or later in
the day.
The problem, though, is that these
"road user fee" systems are being
designed and built in a way that
strips drivers of their privacy and
invites constant surveillance by
police, the FBI and the Department
of Homeland Security. (continued)
READ MORE CLICK HERE!
Drivers in the US
Trust federal bureaucrats to take a
good idea and transform it into a
frightening proposal to track
Americans wherever they drive.
The U.S. Department of
Transportation has been handing
millions of dollars to state
governments for GPS-tracking
pilot projects designed to track
vehicles wherever they go. So far,
Washington state and Oregon
have received fat federal checks
to figure out how to levy these
"mileage-based road user fees."
Now electronic tracking and taxing
may be coming to a DMV near you.
The Office of Transportation Policy
Studies, part of the Federal
Highway Administration, is about to
announce another round of grants
totaling some $11 million. A
spokeswoman on Friday said the
office is "shooting for the end of
the year" for the announcement,
and more money is expected for
GPS (Global Positioning System)
tracking efforts.
In principle, the idea of what
bureaucrats like to call "value
pricing" for cars makes sound
economic sense.
Airlines and hotels have long
charged less for off-peak use. Toll
roads would be more efficient--in
particular, less congested--if they
could follow the same model and
charge virtually nothing in the
middle of the night but high prices
during rush hour.
That price structure would
encourage drivers to take public
transportation, use alternate
routes, or leave earlier or later in
the day.
The problem, though, is that these
"road user fee" systems are being
designed and built in a way that
strips drivers of their privacy and
invites constant surveillance by
police, the FBI and the Department
of Homeland Security. (continued)
READ MORE CLICK HERE!
Free speech:
Use it or risk losing it
By: San Jose Mercury News
The First Amendment is a muscle
that must be used, or it will
become flabby. A survey of high
school students by the John S. and
James L. Knight Foundation
reveals a frail Constitution: Kids
are weak in knowledge of their
rights.
* 73 percent said they didn't know
how they felt about the First
Amendment or took freedom of
speech and the press for granted.
* More than a third (35 percent)
thought that the First Amendment
goes too far in protecting rights.
* One in six students indicated that
people shouldn't be allowed to
express unpopular opinions.
* Only half said newspapers should
be allowed to publish freely
without government approval of
stories.
The apathy is alarming. Those who
don't understand the First
Amendment are certainly less
inclined to exercise it, and they'll
be less skeptical and more easily
conned by government officials
who want to twist and limit it.
(continued) READ MORE
Use it or risk losing it
By: San Jose Mercury News
The First Amendment is a muscle
that must be used, or it will
become flabby. A survey of high
school students by the John S. and
James L. Knight Foundation
reveals a frail Constitution: Kids
are weak in knowledge of their
rights.
* 73 percent said they didn't know
how they felt about the First
Amendment or took freedom of
speech and the press for granted.
* More than a third (35 percent)
thought that the First Amendment
goes too far in protecting rights.
* One in six students indicated that
people shouldn't be allowed to
express unpopular opinions.
* Only half said newspapers should
be allowed to publish freely
without government approval of
stories.
The apathy is alarming. Those who
don't understand the First
Amendment are certainly less
inclined to exercise it, and they'll
be less skeptical and more easily
conned by government officials
who want to twist and limit it.
(continued) READ MORE
Winning with the
News Media
By Clarence Jones
Privacy
Get Out of Here . . .
And Leave Me Alone
Many suits against the media now
claim invasion of privacy, not libel.
Jurors have strong feelings in this
area. So do judges. Privacy cases
focus on personal, emotional
beliefs in conflict with each other.
Appellate courts take widely
different views of similar cases,
depending on the judges’
personal experience and attitudes
about the news media. Jurors are
swayed more by an attorney’s
appeal to their outrage than by the
law and legal precedent.
Today’s technology gives the
media powerful new tools for
intrusion into private lives.
Cameras are smaller and easier to
hide. Conversations are easily
recorded surreptitiously.
Computers and the Internet
provide the ability to rummage
through the closets of your life in
ways that have never before been
possible.
READ MORE CLICK HERE
News Media
By Clarence Jones
Privacy
Get Out of Here . . .
And Leave Me Alone
Many suits against the media now
claim invasion of privacy, not libel.
Jurors have strong feelings in this
area. So do judges. Privacy cases
focus on personal, emotional
beliefs in conflict with each other.
Appellate courts take widely
different views of similar cases,
depending on the judges’
personal experience and attitudes
about the news media. Jurors are
swayed more by an attorney’s
appeal to their outrage than by the
law and legal precedent.
Today’s technology gives the
media powerful new tools for
intrusion into private lives.
Cameras are smaller and easier to
hide. Conversations are easily
recorded surreptitiously.
Computers and the Internet
provide the ability to rummage
through the closets of your life in
ways that have never before been
possible.
READ MORE CLICK HERE
Links
News Links News is edited by Ronnie LoBello
Article;
When Free Speech
Doesn't Come Free
Remi Kanazi
Free speech is not without
consequence. In the United States,
for example, criticism of Israel is
tantamount to heresy.
Former US President Jimmy Carter
felt a societal backlash last year
after the release of his book,
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,
which condemned Israel’s
apartheid-style policies in the
occupied Palestinian territories.
Consequently, and without
foundation, Carter was branded by
many in the American press as a
one-sided, anti-Semitic
propagandist. Similarly, Harvard
professor Stephen Walt and
University of Chicago professor
John Mearsheimer were
lambasted for a paper the two co-
authored that discussed the power
of the Israel lobby and its adverse
effect on American policy.
Additionally, Norman Finkelstein,
an esteemed professor at Depaul
University and author of the
bestselling book, The Holocaust
Industry, witnessed a McCarthyite-
style campaign mounted against
him when he came up for tenure.
Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust
survivors, has been an outspoken
critic of Israel’s human rights
abuses and of pro-Israel apologist
and Harvard professor, Alan
Dershowitz. Predictably, it was
Dershowitz who led the anti-tenure
campaign against him; ultimately,
Finkelstein was not only denied
tenure, but he lost his job at
Depaul.
The attacks against Carter,
Finkelstein, Walt and Mearsheimer
serve as a few well-known
examples of the consequences
writers and intellectuals face when
they breach the line and criticize
Israel. Furthermore, the
condemnation writers and
intellectuals of Arab descent face
are invariably higher than Jews of
conscience, former presidents,
and highly regarded academics. As
a result, many writers often
acquiesce to the demands of the
mainstream. Their self-censorship
usually appears in the form of
"toning down the message," be it
to please editors or critics—
essentially to conform to the
reality of purported pragmatism.
Yet, this "pragmatism" is a
euphemism for acceptance of a
repressive status quo and is
analogous to the "necessary"
practical thinking that silenced a
multitude of commentators during
the Oslo years - the supposed time
of peace. Unsurprisingly, untold
Palestinian suffering followed as a
result of increased settlement
expansion, land confiscation,
checkpoints and seizures, and the
ultimate failure of Camp David 2000.
Shying away from perceived
controversial matters may help to
protect a mainstream career, but
the intent of a political analyst
should not be to produce works of
fiction. The vast majority of
Americans weren’t open to
criticism of US policy during the
run-up to the war on Iraq, mainly
due to the media’s complicity in
promoting the war, but criticism
was still the appropriate course of
action based on the facts, and
Americans would have been better
off for it today.
A man who combined principle,
activism, and human appeal quite
masterfully was distinguished
educator and commentator,
Edward Said. In the realm of
academia and Middle East analysis,
Said was by no means viewed as
the quintessential radical.
Nonetheless, his positions were
radical when juxtaposed with
"conventional wisdom": he was a
proponent of the one-state
solution, an unwavering critic of
the Israeli government, and an
ardent supporter of the ostensibly
controversial right of return. Said
was still heavily criticized
throughout his career and
endured incessant attacks by his
detractors, yet his accessible
personality and articulate message
kept him relevant.
Sadly, Said’s relative acceptance
has been the exception rather
than the rule. In recent years,
there has been increased
emphasis on putative pragmatic
dialogue. However, this
accentuation on so-called rational
and balanced thinking has proven
to be little more than a sinister
means to pressure the oppressed
to accept the position of the
oppressor. The greatest leaders of
the last hundred years didn’t shy
away from controversy; they
remained persistent, and saw their
visions brought to fruition; be they
Martin Luther King, Nelson
Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi.
Nevertheless, one cannot
overlook that even paramount
figures have been castigated for
"overstepping" their boundaries,
namely Martin Luther King who
was chided for speaking out
against the war in Vietnam,
imperialism, and social injustices
that plagued the US.
This week, Palestinians across the
US commemorated 60 years of
displacement. Yet, the lens the
Palestinian people are expected to
look through under the pragmatist
vision is one that sees a
dispossessed people as
necessary victims for a righteous
state to take form. Unfortunately,
waves of writers and
commentators continue to adopt
this line in fear of retribution, in
exchange for nicer houses and
comfortable livings, or a
combination of both. That is their
free will. Free speech is not
without consequence.
Nonetheless, losing piece of mind
is the only repercussion a writer
should fear.
-Remi Kanazi is the editor of the
forthcoming anthology of poetry,
Poets For Palestine, which can be
pre-ordered at www.
PoetsForPalestine.com. He
contributed this article to
PalestineChronicle.com. Contact
him at: remroum@gmail.com.
When Free Speech
Doesn't Come Free
Remi Kanazi
Free speech is not without
consequence. In the United States,
for example, criticism of Israel is
tantamount to heresy.
Former US President Jimmy Carter
felt a societal backlash last year
after the release of his book,
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,
which condemned Israel’s
apartheid-style policies in the
occupied Palestinian territories.
Consequently, and without
foundation, Carter was branded by
many in the American press as a
one-sided, anti-Semitic
propagandist. Similarly, Harvard
professor Stephen Walt and
University of Chicago professor
John Mearsheimer were
lambasted for a paper the two co-
authored that discussed the power
of the Israel lobby and its adverse
effect on American policy.
Additionally, Norman Finkelstein,
an esteemed professor at Depaul
University and author of the
bestselling book, The Holocaust
Industry, witnessed a McCarthyite-
style campaign mounted against
him when he came up for tenure.
Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust
survivors, has been an outspoken
critic of Israel’s human rights
abuses and of pro-Israel apologist
and Harvard professor, Alan
Dershowitz. Predictably, it was
Dershowitz who led the anti-tenure
campaign against him; ultimately,
Finkelstein was not only denied
tenure, but he lost his job at
Depaul.
The attacks against Carter,
Finkelstein, Walt and Mearsheimer
serve as a few well-known
examples of the consequences
writers and intellectuals face when
they breach the line and criticize
Israel. Furthermore, the
condemnation writers and
intellectuals of Arab descent face
are invariably higher than Jews of
conscience, former presidents,
and highly regarded academics. As
a result, many writers often
acquiesce to the demands of the
mainstream. Their self-censorship
usually appears in the form of
"toning down the message," be it
to please editors or critics—
essentially to conform to the
reality of purported pragmatism.
Yet, this "pragmatism" is a
euphemism for acceptance of a
repressive status quo and is
analogous to the "necessary"
practical thinking that silenced a
multitude of commentators during
the Oslo years - the supposed time
of peace. Unsurprisingly, untold
Palestinian suffering followed as a
result of increased settlement
expansion, land confiscation,
checkpoints and seizures, and the
ultimate failure of Camp David 2000.
Shying away from perceived
controversial matters may help to
protect a mainstream career, but
the intent of a political analyst
should not be to produce works of
fiction. The vast majority of
Americans weren’t open to
criticism of US policy during the
run-up to the war on Iraq, mainly
due to the media’s complicity in
promoting the war, but criticism
was still the appropriate course of
action based on the facts, and
Americans would have been better
off for it today.
A man who combined principle,
activism, and human appeal quite
masterfully was distinguished
educator and commentator,
Edward Said. In the realm of
academia and Middle East analysis,
Said was by no means viewed as
the quintessential radical.
Nonetheless, his positions were
radical when juxtaposed with
"conventional wisdom": he was a
proponent of the one-state
solution, an unwavering critic of
the Israeli government, and an
ardent supporter of the ostensibly
controversial right of return. Said
was still heavily criticized
throughout his career and
endured incessant attacks by his
detractors, yet his accessible
personality and articulate message
kept him relevant.
Sadly, Said’s relative acceptance
has been the exception rather
than the rule. In recent years,
there has been increased
emphasis on putative pragmatic
dialogue. However, this
accentuation on so-called rational
and balanced thinking has proven
to be little more than a sinister
means to pressure the oppressed
to accept the position of the
oppressor. The greatest leaders of
the last hundred years didn’t shy
away from controversy; they
remained persistent, and saw their
visions brought to fruition; be they
Martin Luther King, Nelson
Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi.
Nevertheless, one cannot
overlook that even paramount
figures have been castigated for
"overstepping" their boundaries,
namely Martin Luther King who
was chided for speaking out
against the war in Vietnam,
imperialism, and social injustices
that plagued the US.
This week, Palestinians across the
US commemorated 60 years of
displacement. Yet, the lens the
Palestinian people are expected to
look through under the pragmatist
vision is one that sees a
dispossessed people as
necessary victims for a righteous
state to take form. Unfortunately,
waves of writers and
commentators continue to adopt
this line in fear of retribution, in
exchange for nicer houses and
comfortable livings, or a
combination of both. That is their
free will. Free speech is not
without consequence.
Nonetheless, losing piece of mind
is the only repercussion a writer
should fear.
-Remi Kanazi is the editor of the
forthcoming anthology of poetry,
Poets For Palestine, which can be
pre-ordered at www.
PoetsForPalestine.com. He
contributed this article to
PalestineChronicle.com. Contact
him at: remroum@gmail.com.
Rink A Dink's
Main Features;
Rink A Dink;
Main Features;
- Directory page
- About Rink a Dink
Productions - ART GALLERY
- MUSIC
- MOVIES
- 9/11 reports
- Terrorism
- Environmental
Issues - Election Watch
- Police Brutality
- Politics& Religion
from an Objective
Point of Viewrming? - Money
- NEWS LINKS NEWS
- UFO'S
- Conspiracies
- Church of the
Subgenius - Political News &
Info. - Archives of Articles
Past - Contact The
Editor... - Ronnie's Blog
Rink A Dink;
Freedom of Speech and
the Right to Privacy
the Right to Privacy