Spinnaker [Distributed: Wednesday, January 10, 2007]

If laws requiring Internet companies to keep records of Web traffic are passed, a Google search on a home computer will no longer be private. The United States Justice Department is pushing for Big Brother to obtain access to all online activity, which could include free access to personal e-mails.

It's a blatant disregard for the right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights. While some may not mind the government knowing they are searching for new furniture online, it's the policy change that is in the wrong. It's a step in the wrong direction that could be a slippery slope to the government acquiring rights to search through personal messages, mail, and even listen in on phone conversations.

Internet service providers already keep records of Web traffic up to 90 days, which can be accessible to the FBI without a subpoena, according to an article published in McClatchy Newspapers. But if the proposed law is passed, every move an individual makes on the Internet can be linked directly to him or her.

Where does it stop? If this happens, privacy rights will continue to diminish, and years later editorialists will be questioning the rights of government officials to strap tracking devices on people. These officials will say it's for our protection. They'll say it's for our own good. And they'll sing that same song and dance as they use these records to stab political opponents and climb seats in the government.

They're currently singing about the threat the Internet poses on the protection of children. The Department of Justice stresses the need to crack down on those who view child pornography.

Direct Internet logs could help investigators better compile evidence for prosecutors, but in the meantime, most others who are innocent will suffer.

Heavier surveillance defeats the mindset of Americans being innocent until proven guilty and attempts to revert to thinking of lawmakers years ago, who threw all suspects in jail with the burden of having to prove their innocence.

The government is vague on how far this law will allow officials to go and will not reveal whether they are planning to stop at Web sites or span into the content of e-mails.

If they're raising this issue in effort to obtain more ammunition for prosecutors, it's obvious they will to go as far as their checks and balances will take them.

The idea is chilling. This devious scheme covered by a desire to protect children is nothing but an attempt to take away freedom of speech rights covered by the First Amendment.

The issue of child pornography is not one that should be overlooked. Something should be done to protect children, but not at the expense of all Internet users. Instead, the government could request that all Internet providers regularly report users who are accessing illegal sights containing children. Then children will be safer, criminals will be punished and the privacy of the innocent will be maintained.

'Ashley Treatment' unusual, but humane

Editorial

Her parents call her their "pillow angel." Ashley is a 9-year-old girl growing up somewhere in the United States. A week ago, her parents set up a blog online to share images and stories of her life with the viewing public. Since then, her story has been read by more than 1.6 million people.

The reason for her newfound fame is not because she's smarter, or funnier, or a better singer or more successful athlete than other girls her age. In fact, the source of the public's interest in her story stems from the fact that she's got a condition prohibiting her from ever laying claim to those or any other superlatives.

Ashley is a mentally-disabled girl who will probably never even speak, or eat, or move by herself. Her parents care for her at home, along with her two other siblings.

The reason Ashley is famous is because of the treatment her parents have elected for her. Some have called it extreme or outright cruel.

Since Ashley was six, her parents, in cooperation with doctors, have subjected her to a high-dose estrogen therapy process. These treatments permanently stunted her growth by an estimated 13 inches.

The family's reasoning, as expressed on their new Web site, is that a smaller Ashley is more easily moved and carried around by her aging parents, allowing her to participate in more family activities.

The "Ashley Treatment" doesn't end there, however. As part of the procedures which her parents say are designed to improve her quality of life, her uterus was surgically removed, along with her breast tissue - to reduce the risk of feminine complications and breast cancer, respectively.

Online message boards throughout the last week have been flooded with knee-jerk "Oh, that's disgusting!" posts condemning the parents as self-interested deviants who torture their child and rob her of her dignity in order to accommodate their day-to-day lives.

It is important to consider the bigger picture here, however. In Ashley's case - that is, the case of a girl who will never live independently and who can count only on her family for comfort and support - her long-term happiness is contingent upon her family's ability to take care of her. And that depends upon the physical logistics of their ability to get her places.

Ashley will never walk. She will never bear children. She will be carried in the arms of a parent everywhere she goes until they can carry her no longer. And however that day can be delayed, her parents feel, is worth the momentary discomfort and the glaring judgmental eyes of those happily distanced from the real situation. After all, what is a few short months of recovery compared to years of time together with her family?

The cost may seem high. But when compared to the benefits Ashley will be able to enjoy for the rest of their lives with the set of potential problems minimized, what once appeared to be a perversion of the natural order naturally becomes the right treatment for a girl in a very unique situation.

Penny may have outlived its usefulness

Everyone wants to throw in his two cents about the penny. I argued recently that the one-cent coin has outlived its usefulness. It's a burden not only to millions of trouser pockets, but also to the U.S. taxpayer, since each penny now costs roughly 1.75 cents to mint.

Many readers agree, and some even have their own personal coin-reform programs. Ed Naratil writes: "For many years now my pockets get emptied of change every evening into a jar ... About every two months I roll up the change and take them to my local bank where I exchange it for half dollars and dollar coins.

"I never carry one-dollar bills. The smallest I carry are two-dollar bills (which) I get in packets of 100. I've been doing this for years. In fact some clerks don't use my name; they just call me 'funny money.'"

But I also heard from plenty of penny-pinchers, who are certain cent-less shopping would be a loser for consumers.

Adds Ralph Swift: "I live in New Jersey where the sales tax is 7 percent. Scrapping the penny would only benefit the politicians who set tax policy and the retailers who collect the sales tax.

"If I make a $1 purchase, I pay seven cents sales tax. Do away with the penny and the tax will be rounded to 10 cents. Small change, perhaps, but meaningful to the consumer."

I have to admit that last argument had me puzzled. Even if you do all your shopping in those wonderfully lively and chaotic places called dollar stores, do all your purchases come out to exactly $1 (before tax)?

What happens when you get a bill for $1.59? Your 7 percent sales tax is precisely 11.13 cents. Do you offer the store an IOU for thirteen-one hundredths of a cent?

As for prices rolling up inexorably toward the next-highest nickel in the absence of pennies, I'm skeptical.

Suppose the penny disappeared, and merchants had to round down to ".95." Do you think they'd give up strategic pricing rather than swallow the four- cent difference?

Bet you a nickel they wouldn't.

But the strangest case for keeping the penny came from reader Darrel Morton, who cites the impact on jobs at the Philadelphia Mint.

"Even though every survey shows the public still supports making the penny, you propose the opposite which would likely affect the livelihoods of hundreds of Philadelphia Mint employees," Morton wrote.

Well, OK - although some of the extra tax dollars paid to subsidize the penny also come from the pockets of Philadelphians.

But if local job-preservation is your goal, why not have Washington resume minting half-pennies, two- and three- cent pieces and all the other coins we've abandoned over the years?

Makes cents to me...

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE

Bowl madness cheapens value of championships

The credo of modern civilization is MORE ... of anything and everything you can get your hands on. We now have more college football bowl games than ever before, 32 of them to be sure! They ran from Dec. 19, 2006 to Jan. 8, 2007.

Back in the day, before the 1980s, bowls were about fun and meaningful competition. The four major bowls and the Sun Bowl go way back as festivals. The Rose Bowl - the "granddaddy of them all," as commentators are fond of saying - began in 1902. The first game was just one of many activities connected with the Tournament of Roses, but after a disappointing 49-0 rout, the game was replaced by chariot races until 1916. After World War I, the Rose Bowl was built specifically for football.

Until the 1980s, post-season college football was focused on the best teams, league champions and outstanding major independent teams. They were about competitive excellence in a festive atmosphere.

As in many other areas of our society, excellence has gone out the window in most post-season football games. Still corporations don't mind plastering their names all over the scene. This began in 1988 with the USF&G Sugar Bowl (what's up with that name anyway?). By 1990 we had the first bowl with just a corporate name, the Blockbuster Bowl. Nowadays we have names like: PapaJohn's.com (don't forget the.com), Champs Sports, Meineke, and Chick-fil-A (mispronounced by several sportscasters as filah!).

Enough. We don't need this surfeit of bowls. And if this bowl explosion is a surreptitious way of obtaining a playoff system for college football, it is a wrong move. The current Bowl Championship Series works well enough.

Letter to the Editor

Library etiquette leaves much to be desired

If I have to listen to one more loud cell phone conversation, one more blaring ringtone, or one more impromptu gossip session in the University of North Florida library, I'll scream!

Seriously, that wouldn't be any more obnoxious or disrespectful than the students who have forgotten that libraries are supposed to be conducive to reading, research and study. How can I be expected to do any of those with someone yammering into their phone three feet away?

This afternoon was the worst yet: I was sitting in the computer lab trying to work on my term paper while two students next to me sat there giggling over their Facebook profiles. I couldn't get up and move to another chair because there were no free computers, and they were impervious to the impatient looks thrown their way. Needless to say, I literally couldn't hear myself think. I probably would have gotten more work done at Wackadoo's with the radio blasting.

What happened to the good old library rules about keeping your voices down and your phones switched to silent mode? Has basic politeness become outdated in our technology-fixated society? Would it be so hard for people to whisper, or - better yet - to take their conversations and phone calls to another part of the library, AWAY from where people are trying to study?

If the library has rules about silence and etiquette, it's time to start enforcing them. I'm not asking for the staff to prowl the aisles shushing people for the slightest whisper - I'm just asking for a reasonably quiet library where I can work without distraction. Signs reading "quiet please" wouldn't hurt and neither would computer lab monitors who encouraged people to keep the volume down.

The fall semester is over and the beginning of the spring term would be the perfect opportunity to encourage better library etiquette. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way and hopes we can make this happen.

Religious salutations may stifle cultural diversity

It disheartened me to read a student opinion piece submitted by Raquel Manning in the Dec. 6 edition of the Spinnaker. The piece was regarding the use of 'Happy Holidays' versus 'Merry Christmas' in extending holiday greetings.

In the article, Manning argues that the practice of retailers extending the greeting Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas to customers is "not tolerant of Christians" and equated to "persecution" of Christians.

I strongly disagree with Ms. Manning's argument. I believe in our world were we as citizens of not only the United States but also the World, face ever increasing diversity, Happy Holidays is a more appropriate greeting than any religion/ethnicity specific greeting for today's diverse world.

I fail to believe that issuing such a neutral greeting is really as prejudicial and offensive as Manning argues. I believe that arguments like the one Manning has expressed only act to exacerbate cultural and religious differences, at a time of year when our goal should be peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

I can understand how Manning and others like her can feel like in this day and age that their Christian beliefs and values are under constant attack. The world today is shrinking; information is exchanged more rapidly than at anytime in history. With this rapid exchange of information comes diversity. In times of diversity traditional values often become overshadowed by a need to cater to everyone.

However, this overshadowing should not be viewed as an attack or persecution of Christianity. I believe Christians such as Manning should embrace diversity as a way in which to strengthen and reinforce their faith. Not reject it in favorite of defiant solidarity.

'Merry Christmas' argument represents courage

I want to personally commend Raquel Manning on a very well written column in the Dec. 6 publication of the Spinnaker.

I found it very refreshing to see that someone else shares the same Christian values and is courageous enough to stand up for them as Manning has done. I only hope to have the opportunity to read future columns of such significance.

The most profound thing Manning discussed was something that I had previously conversed about with a close friend: the idea of having a memorial on campus to represent Christianity. Ever since the introduction of Gandhi on campus, I found it very troubling considering that the largest form of religion is symbolically absent on our campus today - all the while, we have other nominal religions present. I would like to change this.

Even though today's society has no respect or room for Christian values, there are still some of us that are believers and are willing to stand up for them. I just want to thank Manning for being on of those people and for her contribution.

Anyone can just print some meaningless rhetoric that forefront the majority of publications today. Columns like hers are what make a difference.

Claims of Christian persecution in United States meritless

Raquel Manning's column regarding the expression "Merry Christmas" was the silliest opinion I have ever read.

Most people say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" to be nice, not to change religious beliefs. Coincidentally, the word holiday derives from Middle English and means "holy day."

This is a sad example of someone starting a fight regarding something that isn't a real issue. I know that being Christian in a country where only around 80% adhere to your belief system can lead to some severe persecution, but I am afraid that people who wish you a "Happy Holiday" are simply trying to be friendly.

I suggest that if Manning is truly concerned with the persecution of Christian rights, she volunteer in a country such as those she mentions in her article and form a movement. A peaceful one would be great, perhaps following Ghandi's teachings - who by the way, has a statue on campus because of his non-violent work to create change, not because he is Hindu or, as Jesus, founded a religion.

I find it hard to believe that if Martin Luther King Jr. was honored for his peaceful initiatives, the difference between King's work and Jesus himself would not be recognized.

Student atheist group not necessarily 'faithless'

Thank you for publishing the article "Faithless grow among student atheist group" in the Nov. 29 Spinnaker, but I do not think the word "faithless" was appropriate or accurate.

Certainly if by faith you meant belief in medieval superstitions, then this student group, Campus Crusade for Positive Atheism (CCPA), would seem faithless.

But CCPA members have faith in many things, as I believe we all do. The point of CCPA is that many of us have faith in our own ability to understand the world without resorting to ancient superstitions.

In short, our faith is in reason and modern science. I appreciate the positive attitude of the students starting CCPA and their interest in promoting open and respectful discussions so much that I have volunteered to be their faculty advisor.

Aren't open, thoughtful and respectful discussions with those with which we disagree part of what a university's general education should be about?

Print Edition

DISCOURSE

Internet proposal subverts privacy law

Editorial

'Ashley Treatment' unusual, but humane

Editorial

Penny may have outlived its usefulness

Bowl madness cheapens value of championships

Letter to the Editor

Library etiquette leaves much to be desired

Religious salutations may stifle cultural diversity

'Merry Christmas' argument represents courage

Claims of Christian persecution in United States meritless

Student atheist group not necessarily 'faithless'

Spinnaker's Best

Spinnaker's Worst

Spinnaker's Fix

Print Edition