Friday, November 6, 2009

Harbinger of Terror at Fort Hood



Yesterday, November 5, 2009, a lone gunman murdered 13 people and injured dozens more at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. The shooter was Nadal Malik Hasan, a Major in the U.S. Army. When news broke that a U.S. military base had been attacked, the story immediately saturated major media outlets. As details trickled in, journalists and politicians began to analyze the data. What had happened here?

Within hours, it became public knowledge that Major Hasan was the shooter, and that he was a Muslim who had spoken out against U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. While a few news outlets reported this information, for the most part these facts were purposefully ignored by the press. One CNN reporter commented that “it would be irresponsible of us to speculate about any possible motives for these attacks,” and that “right now, our only thoughts should be for the families of those who were killed.” This was the attitude taken by most news outlets, and by all politicians I saw interviewed yesterday.

President Obama, in his initial comments about the attacks, said that his “immediate thoughts and prayers [were] with the wounded and with the families of the fallen and with those who live and serve at Fort Hood.” Though the President must have known about the shooter’s identity and ideological motives at this point, nowhere in his speech did Obama mention the words “Islamic” or “terrorism.”

Like most Americans, I was saddened when I heard the news of the Fort Hood attack. But also like most Americans, my “immediate thoughts” on the issue included the vital question: Was this an act of terrorism? Why haven’t President Obama, the Governor of Texas, or any other political leaders raised the issue of Hasan’s ideological motivation for these attacks? Why has the press (for the most part) ignored this issue? The FBI quickly noted on Thursday that the Fort Hood murders had “no known nexus to terrorism.” They said this within hours of the attack, before Hasan had even been publicly identified as the shooter. Why the hasty public statement dissociating the Fort Hood attack from Islamic Terrorism?

While this was not an act of foreign aggression, a critical part of the story here is that Hasan was motivated by the same violent philosophy as most of the political leaders in the Muslim world. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and many other nations are dominated by supporters of militant Islam. It is these nations which now pose the greatest threat to the free world.

But the United States has so far been unable to win its “War on Terror,” a war it wages against backwards nations without a tenth of her military might. The public response to the Fort Hood shootings provides insight as to why we are losing this fight.

Western journalists, diplomats – and above all, political leaders – refuse properly to identify the enemy: proponents of militant Islam. It is not just the cave-dwelling, goat riding bunch of murderous Theocrats in Afghanistan who pose a threat to us. It is the Mulsim governments who support these terrorists, materially and otherwise. It is the millions of Muslims worldwide who cheer for them every time they claim a new victim.

Not every Muslim is my enemy. If a Muslim man – like the average American Christian – refuses to take some aspects of his religion seriously; if he opposes the integration of state and religion; if he denounces the motivations, objectives, and tactics of militant Islamists around the world; then he is not my enemy. But if he does support these things, then he is my enemy, and a nation full of people like him is a serious threat to my life.

The sooner the West is willing to identify the enemy, the sooner we can fight and defeat him.

--Dan Edge

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Dr. Yaron Brook on "Capitalism Without Guilt"



This past Tuesday, November 3rd, I attended Dr. Yaron Brook's talk "Capitalism Without Guilt" at Georgia Tech's downtown Atlanta campus. The turnout was amazing; there must have been over 100 attendees, most of them students. There were a few dissenters in the audience who surfaced during the question period, along with more than a few Objectivist faithful, like myself. But the strongest contingent appeared to be students who had heard of Ayn Rand, who had heard about her radical political views, and wanted to learn more. Brook's lecture was perfect for this group of people -- in fact, it specifically targeted them.

Brook is famously knowledgeable about financial and economic issues. His life and work experience qualify him as an expert in these matters, which is why so many financial news venues have had him on as a guest. So when Brook presents his version of how and why the mixed economy failed us over the past few years (and decades and centuries), he is extraordinarily convincing. He talked about government intervention in the housing and banking industries which lead directly to the problems we face today. He talked about various price controls attempted throughout the decades, and how and why they have failed. He talked about the biggest, most complex, and most destructive price control of them all: the Fed's control of interest rates. But as usual, Dr. Brook found a way to relate all of this information, not only to politics, but to morality.

A good 1/2 of Brook's talk was about morality, which may come a a surprise to those unfamiliar with Brook's lecturing style or with the ARI's general strategy in disseminating a philosophy of freedom. This continuing focus on morality, in my view, is what makes Brook (and other ARI speakers) so effective. This lecture was about economics, finance, politics, capitalism, etc., but Brook kept coming back to the moral defense of capitalism. Even pro-capitalists find it difficult to endorse free markets on moral grounds. Why, he asks? Because the predominant Judeo-Christian ethics of altruism conflicts directly with the individualistic ethics which necessarily must underlie a capitalist system. Brook addresses this conflict head on. And I'm lovin' it!

Don't just argue that socialized medicine is impractical, he says -- argue that it is fundamentally immoral! Same with banking regulations, Medicare, Social Security, etc. While it's true that these statist policies are always economically impractical and destructive, the primary objection to them is that they violate individual rights, and are therefore immoral. Brook gets to the heart of the matter, and is not afraid proudly to endorse the virtue of rational self-interest.

I was very pleased with Brook's talk, and with his handling of questions afterward. Brook is an excellent communicator, and a strong leader in the fight for freedom in the US. Keep it up, Brook!

Aside from the lecture itself, I had a great time with friends, old and new. Thanks to all for making my Georgia/Athens romp so memorable!

--Dan Edge

Friday, October 30, 2009

Cold Turkey



I had intended to finish an article today, but I couldn't do it because my mind is going crazy. Why? Because it's been over 40 hours since I've smoked a cigarette. I went from smoking about a pack a day to quitting cold turkey. That's what I did last time, and it worked for over three years, until I started going through a divorce. Then I started smoking regularly again. I knew I'd have to quit again at some point.

Yesterday morning, I started thinking about how tough it was going to be to subsist on student loans for 2 years. Plus, I realized that a lot of smokin' hot women won't even consider dating a smoker. So, instead of smoking my first cigarette of the morning at 8:30am yesterday, instead I threw away my whole pack. My mind and hands have been going nuts ever since for want of something to obsess over. After a few more days, it shouldn't be so uncomfortable. And I'll finish that blog post I promised myself I was going to write. Until then, this post will have to do it.

--Dan Edge

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Notes From the Edge - Episode 1!




I listened to Dr. Diana Hsieh's intellectual podcast "Rationally Selfish Radio" for the first time today, and it inspired me finally to kick off my own podcast, which I'm calling "Notes From the Edge." Appropriately enough, my first podcast is a response to some issues Diana raised in Episode #18 of her podcast, regarding demoting a relationship from a romance to friendship.

I wrote an article about this several years ago, in which I focused on the importance of reorienting one's thoughts of his former lover such that she is no longer an object of sexual desire. This is dificult to do, but can be very rewarding; former lovers can make some of the best friends.

I welcome comments on this, my first podcast. Thanks to Dr. Lady Hsieh for the inspiration!

--Dan Edge

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Temporary Silence



I’ve been holding back writing anything about my trial for the past few days because I wanted to consult legal counsel first. I’ve been in touch with several legal organizations, including the ACLU, and I’m getting closer to finding someone to represent me for my upcoming criminal trial. I won’t be writing much more about my case until the criminal trial is over, so I’d like to state a few things now for the record.

First, my silence should not in any way be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Even if the Greenville curfew ordinance were Constitutional (it is not), Bicycle Bad Cop still did not have probable cause to arrest me. I assert this despite Judge Hawley’s rubber stamp to the contrary at my preliminary hearing.

Second, I have been told that the Younger doctrine prevents me from filing a 1983 Civil Suit against the City until after my criminal trial is over. This is not a bad thing, as it gives me time to evaluate whether to press ahead with such a lawsuit. My contacts at the ACLU tell me that they were already interested in the Greenville curfew ordinance and will likely be publishing a press release about it soon. As it turns out, any minor or parent – not just those who have been detained under the ordinance – can challenge the curfew and have it overturned on 1st Amendment grounds. If this happens, then I may not file suit against the City. Regardless, my silence about a potential 1983 Suit should not be interpreted as a lack of conviction. I just have to deal with what’s in front of me first, namely not going to prison.

Finally, while I may continue to post updates about the case on my blog from time to time, I am disinclined to communicate with the press to any great length (not that they’ve been banging down my door). There are two reasons for this: 1) Every time an article is published about my case, the public response – from locals, anyway – is overwhelmingly negative, including accusations that I must be a pedophile since I am interested in defending the rights of minors. One tires of hearing that kind of crap very quickly. 2) If my case does proceed beyond the Pretrial stage, then I could lose the argument for a change of venue if I am the primary source driving publicity.

Thanks to all who have offered to help me in various ways, and to the dozens who have sent letters of moral support. It has meant so much to me to know that I am not alone in thinking that what happened to me was a grave injustice.

Sincerely,

--Dan Edge

Railroaded

My preliminary hearing took place this past Thursday (10/15), and the result was the worst case scenario I had envisioned going into it – I was railroaded, and my case was rubber stamped for criminal trial by a hostile judge.

While preparing for the hearing, several friends advised me to consult legal counsel, so I looked into it. I did not qualify for a Public Defender (I am too “rich”), but I couldn’t afford a private lawyer without significant financial hardship. The procedure for a preliminary hearing looked pretty straight-forward – it’s very limited what a defendant can do – so I thought I would just do my best to represent myself. In the worst case scenario I could then imagine – that the hearing would be presided over by a hostile judge already familiar with my case and against me from the beginning – it wouldn’t matter if I had legal counsel or not. I would just be out whatever money I had paid the lawyer to represent me.

Lady Luck was not in my corner that day. The presiding judge (Hawley) was clearly already familiar with my case. After I told him that I intended to represent myself, he said, “Let me tell you right now, Mr. Edge: I will not allow you to use this courtroom as a political platform, and if you attempt to do so, I will hold you in contempt of court.” This was Hawley’s introduction to me, and things only got worse from there.

Most of the questions I had prepared were deemed legally “irrelevant” by Hawley. Whether or not the minors were allowed to leave: irrelevant. Whether or not the minors’ arrests were a precondition to mine: irrelevant. Whether my arresting officer was familiar with the curfew ordinance and with “contributing to the delinquency of a minor”: irrelevant. On this last point, the judge himself objected. He said, “Mr. Edge, I assure you that we’ve had cases of ‘contributing to the delinquency of a minor’ in this City before, and I am familiar with the law.” This was stated with a sneering, annoyed tone, along with most of Hawley’s other comments.

Regarding Nelson’s knowledge of the curfew law, I asked him if, according to the ordinance, minors were to be given the opportunity to leave. He answered, “If they violate the curfew, then they are to be detained.” I asked again, “But does the curfew not state that minors are to be given the opportunity to leave before they are detained?” Nelson repeated the same answer. At this point, Hawley interjected again: “Look, Mr. Edge, a police officer doesn’t have a lot of authority over the law while he’s out on the street. All he can do is use his discretion to some extent about whether to enforce the law in a particular situation. He even told them to leave, when he could have just detained them.”

“Your Honor,” I said, “the curfew ordinance directly states that minors are to be given the opportunity to leave before being detained,” and I read to him the relevant lines from the ordinance.

He replied, “Well, he told them to leave, and they refused, and he used his discretion in detaining them.”

The whole thing seemed really bizarre. In some instances the judge would initiate (and, I assume, sustain) objections to my questions completely independent of the prosecution. In others, the prosecutor would say “objection,” and Hawley would cut him off to explain, and sustain, the objection.

Hawley frequently interrupted the proceedings to argue in favor of the prosecution or to badger me about my ignorance of legal procedure. When I asked Nelson if anyone had told him that I instructed them to break the law, Hawley cut in to say, “You don’t have to instruct anyone to break the law, you just have to entice them, and this [referring to the protest flier I had handed out prior to the event] looks like enticement to me.”

Nelson did acknowledge that no one ever told him I had instructed anyone to break the law. He acknowledged that he never questioned anyone about whether I knew how old any of the protesters were. He acknowledged that he never questioned anyone about anything related to my case at all -- before, during or after my arrest. What it came down to was the protest flier. The very fact that I distributed the flier, regardless of whether I specifically targeted any age group, was deemed sufficient evidence for the judge to bind my case over to trial. Nelson even acknowledged that the young men he detained did not have any protest fliers in their possession. That Major McLaughlin of the Greenville City PD had been sent this flier the day before my arrest, and that officers on duty that night (including Nelson) knew about the protest beforehand, apparently were not factors taken into consideration by Hawley when weighing his decision.

I had seen Hawley preside over traffic court a few weeks earlier, and the calm, reasonable man I met at that time bore no resemblance to the indignant, annoyed, belligerent judge who presided over my case. He had his mind made up before he walked into that courtroom. He was doing his worst, not only to argue in favor of the prosecution, but to embarrass me in the process.

While unable to cow me into submission, Hawley did accomplish a few things: he succeeded in looking like an asshole lording over an innocent man from high atop his throne. And he proved that corruption comes in many forms.

The more I think about this, the more angry I become. So I’m wrapping up this blog post for now. Unfortunately, no transcript was made at the hearing. I felt that I needed to chronicle my side of things while the experience was still fresh in my mind.

Thanks for reading,

--Dan Edge

Monday, October 19, 2009

Fumblin' With The Blues

This past week was a rough one for me. On top of everything else that happened, on Friday a Laffy Taffy ripped a crown from my tooth (to be re-cemented today)! Playing the blues often has a cathartic effect on me, so I whipped out my guitar this morning and learned how to play Tom Waits's "Fumblin' With The Blues."

Please allow that this is my second ever music recording, and my first ever photo-montage. The photos tell a story, which you may understand if you're familiar with what's been going on in my life these past few months.

video

--Dan Edge

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Interview With Channel 7 News in Greenville

Originally aired on Channel 7 News @ 11pm on Thursday, October 15. In this interview, I state my intention to file a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against the City of Greenville.

Letter to Media Announcing Prelim

To Whom It May Concern,

** I am Dan Edge, the man who was arrested on 9/5 while protesting Greenville’s emergency curfew ordinance. My preliminary hearing is scheduled for Thursday, October 15 @ 3:00pm at the Greenville Municipal Court (426 N. Main St). At that time I will announce whether or not I will wage a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against the City of Greenville. To journalists from the Greenville News: please note that I will not speak with anyone from your paper.

-----------------------------------------

In case you are unfamiliar with my story: on the Saturday, 9/5, I was wrongfully arrested in downtown Greenville along with two minors who were trying to comply with police orders to leave. I was ordered not to speak while detained, specifically to a journalist present. A detailed chronicle of what happened that evening can be found here.

Journalists from at least two media outlets were on the scene, and a reporter from the Greenville News saw exactly what happened. He claims that he submitted a full report, but that the story was taken over by his editorial staff and modified for “political reasons.” When Managing Editor Chris Weston was notified that his staff may have committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics, he did not look into the matter until I told him that I was publicizing his paper’s role in what happened. A detailed chronicle of my dealings with the Greenville News can be found here.

The City has decided to move forward with prosecuting me for two counts of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” The maximum sentence is six years in prison, three for each count. I will be representing myself and questioning the witness(es) at the hearing, which will take place tomorrow, 10/15 @ 3:00pm at the Greenville Municipal Court (426 N. Main St). At that time, I will also announce whether I will wage a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against the City of Greenville.

Some related, potentially news-worthy facts:

The City is already being investigated by the FBI and SLED for suspected Civil Rights violations. This case is unrelated to mine, but I have contacted both agencies to explore the possibility that the cops they are investigating are the same ones that violated my Civil Rights.

The Greenville City Council is planning to make the curfew permanent, and the new ordinance was given its first public reading on Monday, October 12. I have seen this document, and it still does not include a 1st Amendment exception as required by Federal law. And the ordinance still specifies that minors who violate the curfew are to be arrested (i.e. detained and moved to another location). This is in violation of State law and of our 4th Amendment rights, which protect us against unlawful search and seizure. I spoke to at least four City Council Members over the phone recently, told them that the curfew was unconstitutional as written, and offered to provide documentation for how to make the curfew lawful. They either didn’t listen or don’t care. Anyone arrested under the ordinance can sue the City for violation of 1st and 4th Amendment rights, and/or challenge the ordinance, which would certainly be struck down.

Dan Edge
i.am.dan.edge@gmail.com
864-331-9144

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Preliminary Hearing -- Thursday, October 15

My Preliminary Hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, October 15 @ 3pm at:

Municipal Court
426 N. Main St
Greenville, SC

Be there or be square. Should be a hoot.

--Dan Edge