Way back in February I wrote about Sayed Pervez Kambaksh here; to jog your memory, this was the poor bastard who had the gall to download and distribute a report that was critical of Islam. As mentioned in that post, the penalty for this is, of course, death. 2008 and we’re going to put a man to death for speech. In a democracy. Nice.

The last I looked into this I left the matter with the feeling that it was going to be dealt with correctly. That is, the death sentence would be rescinded and the journalist would be let go. This was all in keeping with that whole “March of Democracy” that the President keeps talking about; you know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all that good stuff.

Guess again. Today I received an email from the Center for Inquiry as part of a letter writing campaign that they are conducting to try and save Mr. Kambakhsh’s life.

A bit of background here - the Afghan constitution gives Islam as the state religion and declares that “no law can be contrary to provisions and beliefs of Islam”. However, it also states that people are free to practice other religions (As an aside, how this works with an apostate Muslim - which I believe is punishable by death in the Qur’an - remains to be seen). Continuing on with the constitution, Article 34 states that “Freedom of expression shall be inviolable. Every Afghan shall have the right to express thoughts through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with provisions of this constitution.” Article 7 commits Afghanistan to the United Nations charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Last time I checked, freedom of and from religion is one of those rights.

Yet they plan on putting someone to death for distribution of materials that state the Qur’an and Mohammed legitimize the oppression of women. Oppression of women….like not letting women drive, making women wear burkas, forcing women to only go out in public chaperoned by a male relative. Oppression of women….like honor killings. You know, all the things that happen in the Islamic Theocracies in the midle east. Seems to me that all Mr. Kambakhsh was doing was distributing literature that stated the obvious.

Please take a second to fill out the online petition here to try and convince Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan (the one our country’s blood and treasure helped put in charge) that he should heed the words of his constitution and not sink to the barbarism of executing a man for the ridiculous “crime” of blasphemy.

I followed professional cycling, especially the Tour de France from 2000 through 2006. For almost all of those years I watched every single stage in real time from my basement couch - one of the few benefits to the work-from-home job I had at the time. I watched Armstrong win a record sixth and seventh time. I watched sprinters miraculously thread their way through a press of bodies and machines to take a stage. I watched climbers leave everything on the side of a mountain as they forced the pedals around to a upward finish in the Pyrenees and Alps, and I watched teams pick themselves up off the ground paceline themselves into a victory in the team time trials.

Since then I’ve watched scandal after scandal hammer the sport. Rider after rider disqualified. Boonen. Vinokurov. Hamilton. Landis. Rasmussen. Basso. Contador. The names go on and on. The shame goes on and on.

It’s funny, because I used to tell friends that I believed that Floyd and Tyler were innocent, that there was enough doubt out there to prove their innocence. I followed Hamilton’s attempt to rejoin the sport, checking his blog every few weeks to see the status of his legal fight. I did the same thing with Landis.

These days I just don’t care anymore, because it seems that cycling doesn’t care. The various organizations invovled all seem more interested in furthering their own ends rather than cleaning up the sport. Want an example? Look up some of the statements made by Dick Pound from WADA in his Captain Ahab-esque mulityear crusade against Lance Armstrong. This is the same WADA that an investigative report in the LA Times referred to as “a closed, quasi-judicial system without American-style checks and balances”.

Cycling needs an image makeover and the biggest part of that is figuring out a way to handle their drug testing that swings the pendulum away from the current status quo and into something that works. There is no incentive to cooperate if you are doping; the penalties are too harsh for even a first offense. Many times the accused are just that - accused, without any proof, but being accused is enough to be banned from a race. Or being involved with a team that has a member that is accused of doping.

The penalties are crushing; a two year suspension on the first offense (which can take many a rider out of the sport altogether depending on his age) and a lifetime ban on the second. If it’s a false positive or you are wrongly convicted you are pretty well screwed. It may just be me, but especially in the Tour de France the zero tolerance policy seems to be causing more issues than it clears up.

It’s frustrating, because I loved watching cycling. There is something about the pagentry, the scenery, the teamwork; the suffering of the individual riders, the suffering of the peloton. Most of all I loved watching the stages in the Alps and the Pyrenees. It’s a cliche widely abused by everyone who remembers ABC’s Wide World of Sports, but to me the mountain stages were always the Thrill of Victory and the Agony of Defeat all rolled up into one.

Maybe someday cycling will come around and put aside all the turf wars and come up with a solid plan for moving the sport forward. I’d like to see it, but I’m not holding my breath.

Years ago, in the long-ago before-time when I traveled to San Diego several times a month I was a subscriber to audible.com. On one hand, it was great - my plan gave me the ability to purchase two audio books per month that I could then put on my iPod to give me something to do as I was trapped for hours on end in a steel cylinder at 30,000+ feet. On the other hand, the Audible Digital Rights Management (DRM) protection on the media files made it a complete pain in the ass every time I changed computers or media players. Not sure about today, but at the time you only were able to authorize up to 3 devices to play your content back…which doesn’t seem like it’s a big deal. Until you change hardware (something I did frequently) and forgot to unauthorize your old hardware (something I also did frequently).

Because of the stupidity of the Audible DRM, I canclled my monthly subscription years ago. When Amazon bought Audible back at the beginning of 2008 I was exicited because I felt that there was a good chance - in fact a good business reason - to remove the DRM from the files. You know, so I could have fair use of the material I was paying for? Without having to rely on a third party (Audible) to stay in business and keep their servers and licensing applications up and running? Because without the ability to authorize a computer or media player for Audible content those files are just so much worthless data.

Well, it’s been a half year since the acquisition and still no movement on the DRM. To be honest, I had forgotten about the Amazon promise to look into removing the DRM until I read this article on Boing-Boing. The site mentioned - callanaudible.org - provides links to respond back to Amazon regarding the Auidble DRM and collects virtual signatures for a petition to send to Amazon. I joined the petition and used the Amazon.com contact form to send a message to Amazon outlining what I’ve just explained above. Since Beth, Alex, and I all listen to audiobooks on our iPods I thought it may be a nice family gift to get a book plan with Audible; provided that I’m not stuck with the DRM issue that I still deal with on the 20 or so books I already own.

As I feared, the response (reproduced below) was complete bullshit; the type of corporate non-answer you would expect from the marketing department of a big company.

Hello from Amazon.com.

Audible is DRM agnostic — our primary goal is to offer a great
customer experience. Audiobooks purchased on Audible.com can be played
on over 600 AudibleReady devices, including Kindles, iPods and most
other MP3 players, Tom Toms and other GPS devices, Sonos and other
in-home systems, and all PCs and Macs. Unlike DRM-free MP3 music files
designed for songs, audiobook files must deliver a unique multi-hour
listening experience. Customers have recognized and appreciated
Audible’s unique listening experience since the company’s inception in
1997. Audible is committed to maintaining and improving the features
that drive this experience.

Audible recently announced that it is working to provide the option of
DRM-free spoken word audio titles on Audible.com for content owners
who prefer this method and are committed to working with Audible to
maintain a great customer experience.

Thanks for your interest in Amazon.com and Audible.

Sincerely,

Customer Service
Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/

Wow, that’s great Amazon. First off you state that you’re agnostic on DRM. So does that mean that you’re not sure that DRM exists? Or is it that you (astonishingly) don’t have a corporate position on it? Or is it that you’re just trying to weasel out of answering the question? My money is on #3 here.

Second, you go on to try and draw some false dichotomy between “mp3 files designed for songs” and files that are used for a “unique multi-hour listening experience”. Maybe you want to explain this one to me? I have a great number of Audibooks that are in mp3 format….and the multi-hour listening experience is just fine with these, thank you. And it seems like you saying that DRM is required for an audio book? Which is funny, because it seems that some really stupid decisions would have had to be made to produce an Audible file (the .aa format) that is incapable of working without the DRM.

Would it have been that tough to answer the questions asked? Would it have been that tough to show that whoever is writing these responses has a tiny clue about the technology used in these audio books? And I’m still amazed by the use of “agnostic” in the response. Someone had to have been really proud of themselves for coming up with that!

<sigh>

I was talking to Beth about the whole issue the other day and my bottom line was that if I buy something I should have the ability to do with it what I want. If I buy a book, I can give it to a friend to borrow. If I buy an audio book I should be able to do the same thing. Sure, I could abuse the situation and make copies of the audiobook and distribute it; but that possiblity is always going to be there. No matter what DRM or other roadblocks are put in place there is always going to be someone who figures out how to circumvent the protection.

You would think a company as big as Amazon would wake up to the realization that treating their customers like criminals is going to do nothing but hurt their sales. I for one won’t buy these crippled books; and from the various forums I read it seems like I’m part of a rather large minority.

Early last tuesday I had the misfortune to be trapped in a hospital waiting room with the local (WEWS Channel 5 out of Cleveland) morning show. I say misfortune not because I was waiting for someone in the hospital - it was an outpatient procedure and everything turned out just fine and dandy - but more in the sense that I had to sit through the load of codwallop that was being served up by the credulous hosts of “5 In the AM” or whatever they call their goofy show.

Now, I know that the local morning shows aren’t known for their engaging intellectual content; mainly they seem to revolve around what clothes you should wear, a new receipe or two, and (if you’re lucky) an interview with a local author, sports figure, or the like. I’m willing to accept that fact; it’s not necessarily my cup of tea, but then again I don’t watch all that much TV anyways. That is, unless I’m a captive audience.

So what was it that drove me to the point of wanting to gouge my eyes out? Why, it was “Mary Ann The Ghostbuster”. Nope, not making that one up. That is actually what this woman calls herself…and that is also what she is called by the softball tossing crew at what bills itself as “Newschannel 5″. Yup. In-depth, investigative reporting there.

For at least 10 minutes - I lost track of time due to the high level of innanity pouring from the TV - this woman blathered on about ghosts and spirits in response to “questions” from viewers. I put questions in quotes, because in many cases Mary Ann was able to create her own questions from the simplest of caller statements.

For example, I paraphrase one exchange (unfortunately this stellar paranormal work does not seem to be recorded or documented anywhere so you’ll have to rely on my memory):

Caller: I have an old house - it was built in the 1870’s - and occassionally I feel and hear strange things.

Ghostbuster: Oh, that’s the spirt of a lady. You have steps that go down to a cellar?

Caller: Yes!

Ghostbuster: And the cellar has a dirt floor….

Caller: Yes!

Ghostbuster: She’s harmless…

And it went on and on like that. This was near the low end of the scale as far as cold reading goes - I took it as a fantasy prone person with an overactive imagination coupled with a pair of credulous local “news” people and a dozen or so callers who wanted to play the ghost game. For example, in the recreated section above I’m not all that impressed that she managed to “hit” the fact that a 138 year old house had a cellar or that the cellar had a dirt floor. Wow. That’s as impressive as managing to guess that a house built in 2005 has central air.

Initially I just dismissed this whole episode as someone starved for attention appearing on local TV. But then I did a bit of research and discovered that - in a profile on www.clevelandseniors.com - Mary has a business as a paranormal investigator. Why she even gives classes! I’m not sure what the classes are in…but she gives them. She even clears houses! And if the Indians would let her hold their legal papers she could clear the curse that’s on them! (You really should read the profile - it’s chock full of all sorts of exciting knowledge of the paranormal - it even covers their relationship with Cleveland sports teams).

You know, given her amazing abilities you have to wonder why Mary Ann isn’t all over the Randi Million Dollar Challenge….she definitely seems to think she has a demonstrable talent. Having followed Randi’s blog for some time know, though, I know that was asked why she hadn’t applied for the challenge there would be a million reasons/excuses. I’ll cut right through all those and go with the most obvious though; there are no ghosts, so there is nothing to talk to, exorcise, clear, or do whatever it is that she lays claim to doing as a “Ghostbuster”. To repeat, I unequivicably state that based on all available evidence THERE ARE NO GHOSTS. No matter what you want to believe; no matter what amazingly convincing anecdotal evidence you have; and no matter what Sting sang about in the song Spirts in the Material World.

You really have to wonder about people who believe this crap. How many of them are true believers and how many of them have that Mulder X-Files “I Want to Believe” thing going? How many of them just go along “for entertainment purposes only”? The one moderately encouraging thing I took away from my time in the waiting room with this garbage on TV was the fact that - with the exception of one woman - everyone else seemed to think Mary was full of it as well. This wasn’t a scientific poll; I was going mainly by the rolling of eyes, head shakes, and (on one occasion) laughter following one of the “Ghostbusters” more ridiculous statements.

To close us out, I will admit that the amazingly credulous writer who penned the article on ClevelandSeniors.com got at least one thing right in her writeup:

It is hard to believe the stories she tells, unless you sit across from her and hear her tell them. There is something about her that you want to believe, even if you’re not sure if you do.

She does not try to convince you. She just tells the stories. And there are a lot of them and each one is more interesting than the last.

Yeah, I’m sure the stories are each more interesting than the last. And I’m sure they’re all just as true.

Early in May, Beth managed to get me all fired up about this editorial (Evolution and it’s Critics) in the Akron Beacon Journal. I think she did it knowing that at some point in time I’d get pissed off and write a letter back to the editor about it. Which, of course, is exactly what happened. Sometimes it’s tough being so predictable.

Fortunately, my letter didn’t get published. I say “fortunately” not because I didn’t want to get it published, I’m as narcissistic as the next guy and don’t mind seeing my name in print. Fortunately because there were a number of other writers who wrote in to castigate both the content of the editorial and the author himself. I’m not talking about an Ad Hominem here, folks, I’m talking about the fact that this particular person has a long history of trying to promote his rather fundamentalist Christian ideas regarding creation in the public schools.

Initially I thought that the bit about “MovieGuide.com” in the original editorial was an honest mistake - however, after reading some of the other editorial in response and researching this individual’s letter writing history I’m more inclined to believe it was an intentional deception meant to appeal to the authority of moiveguide.com to validate Expelled.

One other advantage to not being published is, of course, getting to put it up here. I’m sure they’ll be a point in the future where my ranting will be splashed across the pages of the Beacon Journal, there to be read by dozens if not scores. But until then….

I’d like to respond to the editorial entitled “Evolution and its Critics” by Mr. Robert Lattimer in the 1-May-2008 Beacon Journal.

In direct contrast to what is stated in the editorial, MovieGuide.com does not give Expelled 4 stars - in fact, MovieGuide.com redirects to Hollywood.com. As you would expect, this is a site that is concerned with movie reviews and other Hollywood news. However, a search of the site show no reference to the Expelled movie at this time.

On the other hand, MovieGuide.org does have a review of Expelled. Since the quotes in the editorial match the review on MovieGuide.org I have to assume that this is the site that the author meant instead of MovieGuide.com. A quick visit to MovieGuide.org should be enough to convince any reasonable person that it is not a neutral party; in fact, a statement on the website proclaims that “Movieguide is a ministry dedicated to redeeming the values of the mass media according to biblical principles, by influencing entertainment industry executives and helping families make wise media choices.”

In direct contrast to the author’s statements, unfavorable and unflattering reviews seem to be the norm for Expelled. Reviewers seem to feel that there is an undercurrent of dishonesty in the movie, including quote mining, selective editing, and questionable interview tactics. The website ExpelledExposed.com - a website created by the National Center for Science Education to provide information on the claims made in the movie - provides an extensive list of these reviews.

The author states that “objectivity requires that researchers follow the evidence wherever it leads”; I respectfully suggest that he follow that advice and explore the origins of this film, which is little more than a propaganda piece.