Another Reason The USA Patriot Act Should Be Revoked (The New Trucking Regulations).

Hello again everyone. I am back today with a real rant on a subject that may not affect you...yet.
Today's subject concerns my chosen profession. As some of you may know, my chosen profession is being a truck driver. I currently hold a Commercial Drivers License class A (CDL-A) with a hazardous materials (hazmat) endorsement. These facts bring us to the subject of today's rant, specifically the new regulations imposed on CDL holders with a hazmat endorsement.
To begin with, I should note that these regulations are not the work of any one state. The new regulations have been imposed by the federal government as part of the USA Patriot Act (just another reason to hate this law). The Patriot Act requires that all CDL holders wishing to also hold a hazmat endorsement pass through a system of checks to make sure that they aren't a security threat. These checks consist of being fingerprinted (for the new FBI file on you) and passing through a Federal criminal background check. The fingerprinting is to be carried out by an individual state's police (or highway patrol). The background check is to be conducted by the FBI. The entire package is to be approved or disapproved by the Department of Homeland Security-Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). Once the TSA has established that you're not a nut, a criminal, or a terrorist, then they will send the information to your local DMV and you can get your hazmat endorsement (provided you pass the USDOT-required written renewal exam). The cost of all of this is NOT bourne by the federal government (who imposed it), it is to be paid by the driver who wishes to receive the hazmat endorsement. The cost is $24 for the fingerprinting and $34 for the background check. That is a total of $58 in federal fees. Those fees do NOT include the cost of renewing your license. Here is PA, the renewal fee is $76 for a CDL-A with a hazmat endorsement. That brings the grand total to $134!! The regulations for current CDL holders go into effect on 31 May 2005. For those who are getting their hazmat endorsement for the first time, the regulations went into effect on 31 January 2005.
Now $134 might not sound like a lot of money, and these regulations might not sound too bad, but consider these facts:
1. What other professional license (and that's what a CDL is) can be revoked at the drop of a hat and without just cause or due process of law?
2. What other professional license, when revoked, not only prevents you from practicing your chosen profession, but also prevents you from being able to drive to your new place of employment?
3. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'd have sworn that they flew planes into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon on 9/11, not trucks.
4. There have been NO trucks (4-,6-,10-, or 18-wheeled variety) involved in a terrorist attack in the US since the attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City. And that was a Ryder (6-wheeler) truck placed there by a DOMESTIC terrorist (not a member of Al Queda)!!!
5. These regulations are meant to prevent a terrorist from blowing up places like the Golden Gate Bridge or the Lincoln Tunnel. If a truckload of high explosives went off on the Golden Gate do you know what would happen? After the intial confusion, the only damage would be a large hole in the bridge, it would not collapse (not even if it was set off by a bridge support. Remember that it was designed to withstand earthquakes.) If the know-nothing, knee-jerk morons in Congress would bother to check, they would find that the Lincoln Tunnel has a clearance of 13'0". That is 6 inches less than the minimum required for the average tractor trailer pulling a box trailer (tractor trailers are [avg] 13'6"). What that means is that you could try to take your truck into the tunnel, but you wouldn't get far, and when you were done you'd have a nifty convertible truck and trailer!!!

The sheer fact of the matter is that these checks will do nothing to stop a terrorist. However, they will pose an undue burden on the average driver in the form of higher fees. Also, these checks will not catch a truck driving sleeper agent. A sleeper agent (if he is any good at all) will have nothing in his background to indicate that he or she is any kind of threat. In other words, the sleeper agent's background check will come back clean. I mention this because the terrorists who pulled the 9/11 attacks were just such people.
These regulations will, however, put a lot of drivers out of work. I will explain. In the world of over-the-road (interstate) trucking, a hazmat endorsement has almost become essential. It is hard to find a company anymore that doesn't require a driver to have one. Now the new regs state that you can't be a criminal, a mental patient, or a terrorist and get a clearance to hold a hazmat endorsement. So, have you ever had a DUI? How about a traffic ticket? (They don't say just felonies and/or misdemeanors, a traffic ticket is a criminal offense after all [a summary offense if I recall correctly]). Have you ever been depressed and sought help? How about seeking help for problems with stress? (trucking is a stressful job). Are you muslim? Have you ever had a muslim friend? Ever given to a charity? Did you know exactly what that charity did with its money, that is who it gave the money to? These are all things that could disqualify you from holding a hazmat endorsement. Think I am being extreme? Guess again. If you are a driver, then you know the amount of institutional/governmental hostility that surrounds you already. Now they have ratcheted it up AND given themselves an excuse (in the form of these new regs) to keep anyone that they consider to be a "threat" off the highways. What constitutes their definition of "threat" is at best subjective, and at worst extremely prejudiced. I personally resent the imposition of these additional and ultimately ineffective regulations upon an industry that is already over-regulated to the n-th degree. For me, it isn't the additional fees, but being treated like I am some sort of national security threat! Drivers, these new regulations imply that we are a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode! They imply that we are members of a terrorist network, the next Bin Laden. They imply that we are all mentally deranged criminals. I don't know about you, but if someone called me a mentally deranged criminal, I'd probably ask him to step outside! Why should the government be allowed to imply that we (drivers) are a threat to the security of this nation and not be made to either prove their assertions or be forced to shut up?!!? This assertion that we are a threat is preposterous. Gentlemen and ladies, it is time for us to step up to the plate and put an end to this. We haul everything that this nation needs to survive on a daily basis. We haul the food, the clothing, the materials for shelter, and all of the "essential" consumer goods that the people of this nation need to conduct their lives. And what do we get for it? We get treated as though we are criminals in most cases, and now the government is seeing fit to treat us like terrorists too! How long will it be before those "innocent" background checks are used to deny us not only hazmat endorsements, but CDLs, or even other employment not requiring a CDL? My fellow drivers, we MUST stop this now! I urge you to write, call, email, or otherwise get in contact with your Congressman or Senator and tell them that the era of treating truckdrivers like criminals and terrorists is over. It is time that we as a group and an essential industry asserted our collective power. These regulations need to go! If Congress will not act to revoke them, perhaps it is time to pull the long called for, never carried out, general strike. This isn't something as transient as fuel prices or wages, this is much more important, this is an attack by OUR government upon our livelihoods. Would the doctors or the lawyers stand for this type or treatment? Hell no! We are just as much professionals as they are, and just as essential to the operation of this country, so why should we stand for it? Gentlemen, the time for words is past, the time for action is now!
I am Chuck and I probably have just disqualified myself from ever holding a hazmat endorsement!

What Categories Do You Fit Into?

Hello again friends, neighbors, and others. I hope everyone out there in cyberspace is fine.
Today's topic is...the videogames you play. I am not referring to any specific game, rather I am talking about the type of videogame (first person shooter, rpg, strategy, etc.)
I happen to frequent a site dedicated to my favorite videogame. The site is called the "Civilization Fanatics Center" and is dedicated to the game Sid Meier's Civilization in all of its versions (Civ, Civ2, Civ3, Civ3-Play The World, and Civ3-Conquests). Recently the site posted a link to an article run in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer entitled "What do the video games you play say about your personality?" The article, written by Scott Taves, reports that the type of videogame you play can tell you what type of personality you have. Personally, I believe that this is pure bs. You can read the article by clicking on the title (above) and make up your own mind. In his defense, the author does state that the article is written tongue-in-cheek. So have a little fun and anylyze yourself (or someone you know) and see which of the categories you fall into. Just so you know, I fall into all of the categories (based on the games I've played). Arrrrgggggghhhhhhh, therapy take me away!!
I am Chuck and this has been a test of the rant system. (Had this been an actual rant, you'd have been told to duck and cover. I now return you to your actual life.)

Just A Blurb and A Request.

Hello again.
First, sorry about the post about Feedster. I am trying to get a little publicity and I had to blog the link so that I could "claim ownership" of my blog on Feedster's service. I don't know how long I have to leave it there, so I will probably play around with it in a week or so.
Now for the request. I did some checking with some blog listing services and found that there are several blog listed as being Person X's "Occasional Rants" (guess I am not too original, eh?). Therefore, in an effort to stand out from the crowd, I am asking you, my readers, to submit suggestions for a new title for this blog. Please post your suggestions in the "comments" part of this post. I will give you proper credit for suggesting the name (if yours is the one I choose) in the description of the page (the blurb that says that these are my opinions, etc. located at the top of the page) I am looking for something original and creative, but not nonsensical. For example, "Chuck's Raving Lunacies" would be ok, but "Sharpie Can Buttfloss" would not as it makes no sense. The best title I can think of is "Chucking It All To Smoke Lobstercigs," which shows my penchant for wordplays and relates to my name and URL. So if you can do better, please do and please submit your suggestion. If you want credit, leave your name (first, last, nickname, whatever you feel comfortable with) or your initals. To leave a comment, just click on the "comments" link at the bottom of this post. You can submit the comment anonymously, but if you want credit for your suggestion, leave your name or initials in the body of the comment.
This is Chuck, and I thank you for your support (Hope I don't get sued by Bartles and Jaymes!)

Do you own a DVD player, TiVO, DVR, or an HD TV?

Hello again folks. I am back (not that I went anywhere).
Well, it is time again to rail against government stupidity. This time I am not targeting Bush, just part of his administration. I am targeting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and their departing chairman Michael Powell (I think he is Colin Powell's son).
It would seem that a little while ago, and unbeknownst to the general populace, the FCC passed a measure requiring those who broadcast or manufacture digital media to add a "broadcast flag" to the media content. What I mean is that those folks who broadcast digital tv or who make DVDs will have to add a small, invisible software tag to the broadcast or to the DVD. That tag will not be noticed by you, the consumer, in most cases. The place where you will notice it is when you decide that you want to burn the latest episode of your favorite show to DVD (think "record to videotape") or you want to make a backup copy of your kids' favorite DVD so that when the original gets trashed, you don't have to spend another $15 or $20 to buy a new copy. The broadcast flag will not let you make a copy. How it does this is rather complicated, but in simplest terms the software that controls the playback of the DVD or digital recording will not allow you to make a copy of that recording. Now I may not make a great many digital recordings, but I do know that this is a violation of the "Fair Usage" clause of US copyright laws. Fair Usage is the cluase in copyright laws that allows someone to copy a page from a book when doing a report or make a backup copy of a CD so, that when the original gets scratched, you don't have to go buy a new one. Fair usage is also what allows someone to quote a passage from a book, or webpage, or the like without getting sued. So, since the FCC has initiated the end of fair usage, and I want to be within the law, I have decided that from now on anyone who copies anything from this blog, quotes anything I say, or uses any part of this blog in any manner is going to get the hell sued out of them! (Not really, but this is the type of thing that can, and will happen without fair usage). Just imagine that you are a prosecuter who has someone on trial for making a threatening statement. Naturally you will want to use that person's statement to make your case. Oh damn, too bad, you can't. Using the person's statement would be a violation of both the person's intellectual property rights and the copyright laws as dictated by the FCC! I guess you are shit out of luck. However, if fair usage still existed, you, the prosecuter, would still be allowed to use the statement and get the conviction. But since fair usage no longer exists, now the best you can hope for is that the defendent doesn't sue the hell out of you! This is an extreme example of what can happen without fair usage (and some would argue that statements against penal interest are exempt). The point is that supposedly everything that someone says, writes, or creates, is owned (copyright-wise) by that person. If there is no fair usage clause, no one can ever say "Hi" to anyone without violating someone's copyright and therefore opening themselves up to a lawsuit. Now wouldn't that be a lovely world?!!?
This move by the FCC isn't the FCC's doing so much as it is the manipulation of the FCC by people like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). You may have heard of these groups before. The highest profile thing that the MPAA is known for is movie ratings (the G, PG, R ratings at the beginning of movies) and for aiding in the preservation of old movies. Both things are commendable. Lately, to combat the problem of piracy via the Internet, the MPAA has been taking a page from the RIAA's playbook and suing the larger Internet pirates. You may have also heard of the RIAA. This group represents the recording industry. Their most notable or high profile things have been to sue the bejesus out of several hundred "Internet pirates." You know those folks who threaten to bring down the entire recording industry. People like a 12 year old from New York City who lives in low income housing and wanted to share a song or two with her friends, or like the 10 (or 11) year old from Miami whose father (a construction worker who worked long hours) didn't supervise every minute that the kid was online. You know, those folks who make Bin Laden look positively tame! (I am being sarcastic here). Of course, I only went to Pitt, so maybe it is my lack of an ivy league education, but what business model teaches that suing your customers is good for business??? I don't know, maybe it is my practical nature, but the last time I checked, suing your customers only made them dislike you! The challenge for both the MPAA and the RIAA isn't to stop Internet piracy (got news for ya guys, you will never stop it), but to make money off the music downloading phenomenon. Instead of trying to catch everyone who trades a song, sell the right to use that song to them. That is what i-Tunes does. Of course, the idea behind the suits is the same flawed thinking that makes the government think, that after 30 years, several billion dollars wasted, and several thousand people jailed (mostly for minor drug violations), they are winning the war on drugs. Do you know what that flawed thinking is called? Anyone, anyone? It is called "stupidity".
Unfortunately, I have gotten off on a tangent. I wanted to use this space to tell you about the coming broadcast flags and I went off on a tangent about the MPAA and RIAA. Well, back to the original item. The other day I got my latest copy of the "Effector" (the Electronic Frontier Foundation's newsletter) and it contained a link to a good article on what these broadcast flags mean to the average person. The article is called "Michael Powell's Invisible Legacy" and is by J.D. Lasica. It is a very good article on exactly how these broadcast flags will effect things like your DVD player (or recorder), your TiVO, and/or your HD TV receiver. I urge you to read it so that you will know what is coming. If you don't want the things described in the article to occur, I urge you to write to you senator or congressman and tell them to make a change to the rule.

The article can be found at: Reason.com

If you live in Pennsylvania, your senators can be reached at:
Hon. Rick Santorum
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ph. (202)224-6324

OR

Hon. Arlen Specter
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ph. (202)224-4254

OR
Via the Internet at:
Rick Santorum (is a web contact form)
Arlen Specter's email is arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov

You will need to look up your individual US Representative's as there are too many districts to list here.

You can also contact the Federal Communications Commission at their main contacts webpage and go from there.

As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant. Oh, and remember, you cannot quote or use anything from this page without being sued (not even with fair usage. The FCC says it doesn't exist, remember!)