Wow! I lost 105 pounds overnight! Actually, our new digital scale somehow switched its readout from pounds to kilograms, thus my apparent weight drop. It’s some consolation, I guess, since when we switched from the old mechanical clunker scale to the new digital scale, my weight immediately went up 10 pounds. I think I liked that old lyin’ clunker better.
Ever notice that most calculators do not go up to a billion? How then can they be used for government work?
A thousand people surveyed at the British Travel Show showed fliers preferred pilots with accents reflecting the home counties (what we consider the posh British accent) or Scotland, says the UK’s Daily Telegraph. Irish brogues were nice, but not Cockney accents. Among pilot accents people would most like to fly with are Hugh Grant, Sean Connery and Captain Picard himself, Patrick Stewart.
Planned Parenthood wants schools to start teaching children about the pleasures of sex and that religions stand in the way. No, God’s wisdom stands in the way. After all, it was His idea that sexual development be delayed through childhood.
Which brings about the great theological/biological question: did Adam and Eve have navels? And did the term navel gazing come from such questions? And, no, I do not have too much time on my hands.
Watched a bit of the PBS documentary on Bill Clinton. I had forgotten about Clinton’s amazing skills as a retail politician. Liked columnist John Brummett’s recollection of flying in a small campaign plane that Clinton insisted be landed in fog in Harrison, Arkansas. “This is it,” Brummett said. “I’m gonna die.” And, he lamented, he would be in the last paragraph of Clinton’s obituary.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
"Congress Shall Make No Law..."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
So says the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law..."
It says nothing about the state legislature. The city council. The school board.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion.
What does this mean?
When I was a kid one of the geniuses in my neighborhood proudly proclaimed that the longest word was "antidisestablishmentarianism." While the rest of us bright ones thought it was a cool word to say ("Antidisestablishmentarianism!" "Antidisestablishmentarianism!"), we had no idea what it meant.
But now I know. And some would say I am an antidisestablishmentarian.
I am not.
Establishmentarianism is the concept that there should be a national church. The national government "establishes" that church, recognizes it as the country's official religion, and supports it with taxes. Think Germany and the Lutheran Church; the United Kingdom and the Church of England.
Disestablishmentarians are those wanting to do away with a national church. They developed opponents called "antidisestablishmentarians," who advocated continuation of favored status for the church. And came up with a fun word to say.
These are the issues addressed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Not state funding for the Growing God's Kingdom Pre-School of West Fork, Arkansas, not threatening of high schools students with jail if they say the word "Jesus" at graduation, not the need to cover the statues when the President speaks in a church.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says Congress should be antiestablishmentarian, meaning: the United States of America will not have a national church. Nothing more. And the antiestablishment idea is limited only to the United States Congress. At the 1787 adoption of the Constitution about half the states had established churches, including the Congregational Church in Connecticut and the Episcopal Church in Georgia. Despite adoption and ratification of the Constitution, the states remained free to have their established churches. Wisely, over time the states disestablished them, although Massachusetts did not cut loose of the Congregational Church until as late as 1833.
But what about the famous Thomas Jefferson phrase "separation of church and state?" Firstly, it is not in the Constitution; secondly it is contained in a letter Jefferson wrote to a group of Connecticut Baptists. Jefferson in the letter is praising the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, meaning Jefferson was underscoring his position as an antiestablishmentarian, a position strongly shared by Baptists. And yet, antiestablishmentarian Jefferson had no qualms about attending worship services regularly held at the then-unfinished United States Capitol building. Because the use of federal facilities had nothing to do with establishmentarianism.
Why all this treatise on establishmentarianism, disestablishmentarianism, antidisestablishmentarianism? Because these big old words are important. And lack of knowledge of the concepts behind them results in things like a quote in today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette regarding the First Amendment. The quote is from the Arkansas Department of Human Services which claims the First Amendment "prohibits any state or federal law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Wrong. The First Amendment says nothing -- nothing -- about state establishment of religion.
The problem is that about sixty years ago courts began applying that concept to states. And it was more than the concept of disestablishmentarianism. It grew to the concept of separation of church and state to the point of making government activities antiseptically divorced from the slightest whiff of religion.
Pretty hard to do in the most religious of the developed countries.
Thus our current convolutions over church and state.
That's what happens when courts ignore the clear language of the Constitution. And this is only one area of judicial mischief. But that's for another day.
One more thing. To the kids in the old neighborhood where I grew up:
"Antidisestablishmentarianism!"
Some words are just cool.
So says the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law..."
It says nothing about the state legislature. The city council. The school board.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion.
What does this mean?
When I was a kid one of the geniuses in my neighborhood proudly proclaimed that the longest word was "antidisestablishmentarianism." While the rest of us bright ones thought it was a cool word to say ("Antidisestablishmentarianism!" "Antidisestablishmentarianism!"), we had no idea what it meant.
But now I know. And some would say I am an antidisestablishmentarian.
I am not.
Establishmentarianism is the concept that there should be a national church. The national government "establishes" that church, recognizes it as the country's official religion, and supports it with taxes. Think Germany and the Lutheran Church; the United Kingdom and the Church of England.
Disestablishmentarians are those wanting to do away with a national church. They developed opponents called "antidisestablishmentarians," who advocated continuation of favored status for the church. And came up with a fun word to say.
These are the issues addressed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Not state funding for the Growing God's Kingdom Pre-School of West Fork, Arkansas, not threatening of high schools students with jail if they say the word "Jesus" at graduation, not the need to cover the statues when the President speaks in a church.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says Congress should be antiestablishmentarian, meaning: the United States of America will not have a national church. Nothing more. And the antiestablishment idea is limited only to the United States Congress. At the 1787 adoption of the Constitution about half the states had established churches, including the Congregational Church in Connecticut and the Episcopal Church in Georgia. Despite adoption and ratification of the Constitution, the states remained free to have their established churches. Wisely, over time the states disestablished them, although Massachusetts did not cut loose of the Congregational Church until as late as 1833.
But what about the famous Thomas Jefferson phrase "separation of church and state?" Firstly, it is not in the Constitution; secondly it is contained in a letter Jefferson wrote to a group of Connecticut Baptists. Jefferson in the letter is praising the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, meaning Jefferson was underscoring his position as an antiestablishmentarian, a position strongly shared by Baptists. And yet, antiestablishmentarian Jefferson had no qualms about attending worship services regularly held at the then-unfinished United States Capitol building. Because the use of federal facilities had nothing to do with establishmentarianism.
Why all this treatise on establishmentarianism, disestablishmentarianism, antidisestablishmentarianism? Because these big old words are important. And lack of knowledge of the concepts behind them results in things like a quote in today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette regarding the First Amendment. The quote is from the Arkansas Department of Human Services which claims the First Amendment "prohibits any state or federal law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Wrong. The First Amendment says nothing -- nothing -- about state establishment of religion.
The problem is that about sixty years ago courts began applying that concept to states. And it was more than the concept of disestablishmentarianism. It grew to the concept of separation of church and state to the point of making government activities antiseptically divorced from the slightest whiff of religion.
Pretty hard to do in the most religious of the developed countries.
Thus our current convolutions over church and state.
That's what happens when courts ignore the clear language of the Constitution. And this is only one area of judicial mischief. But that's for another day.
One more thing. To the kids in the old neighborhood where I grew up:
"Antidisestablishmentarianism!"
Some words are just cool.
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Glass Half Empty? The Glass Half Full?
Here is a column I currently have in the Washington County Observer:
One can view the health of America as the glass half empty or the glass half full.
The glass half empty is that America’s role on the world stage is over.
Consider the venality of our leaders in politics, media, and business; the unbridled hedonism of consumers; the ignorance of the bread-and-circuses masses; a Republican President saying we needed to destroy capitalism to save it; the mistaking of the last presidential election for an episode of American Idol.
The can-do American spirit is declining, we think. The America that provided moral, economic, and military leadership for decades is collapsing in its own obese self-centered success.
Many in the world are becoming afraid, thinking “If America declines, what happens to us? Who protects us from the growing strength of China? Or the stifling repression of jihad?”
Mindless bureaucracies running our schools are assaulting our children for the most minor infractions in the name of “zero tolerance.” The same absurdities are strangling businesses, meeting us as we board airplanes, dictating to us what to eat or what kind of light bulbs to buy, prohibiting our home Bible studies.
To which fattened politicians only respond: “Give us more money. We need more money! Give us more, you selfish ingrates, you! It’s for the children (and our pay, pensions, lives above the law, perks, plush buildings, limousines, etc., etc.)”
The glass half empty.
But I’d rather examine the glass half full. Because we’ve been down much of this road before. And it was turned around.
In the late 1970s, the economy was bad, gas prices had tripled in six years, interest rates were usurious, Iran held our embassy workers hostage, economists scratched their heads over the contradictions of stagflation, and our president, Jimmy Carter, basically told us to expect less, dampen our hopes, and accept decline.
But the people refused. In 1980 they elected a president whose policies jump-started nearly a quarter century of sustained prosperity and general optimism.
More than his conservative ideology, his strength, his intuitive feel for leadership or his self-deprecating humor, Ronald Reagan knew how to harness a powerful force: the people of America. Away with pessimism, Reagan said, speaking of a city shining on a hill, calling forth the real nature – the optimistic nature -- of the American people.
Reagan is dead. But America – with its ideal – is not.
I call it the American DNA and I see it everywhere.
It’s in the great young people I teach on my college campus. It’s in the sterling courage and sense of duty among those I meet in our military (where did we find such people?).
It’s in the rookie political activists I come in contact with – people who recently have altered their lifestyles by running for office, working in campaigns, organizing grassroots activities, speaking in public, giving up their privacy.
It’s in the industrious, creative people who get up every morning and make things happen in spite of their leaders.
The DNA of America.
It’s the glass half full.
One can view the health of America as the glass half empty or the glass half full.
The glass half empty is that America’s role on the world stage is over.
Consider the venality of our leaders in politics, media, and business; the unbridled hedonism of consumers; the ignorance of the bread-and-circuses masses; a Republican President saying we needed to destroy capitalism to save it; the mistaking of the last presidential election for an episode of American Idol.
The can-do American spirit is declining, we think. The America that provided moral, economic, and military leadership for decades is collapsing in its own obese self-centered success.
Many in the world are becoming afraid, thinking “If America declines, what happens to us? Who protects us from the growing strength of China? Or the stifling repression of jihad?”
Mindless bureaucracies running our schools are assaulting our children for the most minor infractions in the name of “zero tolerance.” The same absurdities are strangling businesses, meeting us as we board airplanes, dictating to us what to eat or what kind of light bulbs to buy, prohibiting our home Bible studies.
To which fattened politicians only respond: “Give us more money. We need more money! Give us more, you selfish ingrates, you! It’s for the children (and our pay, pensions, lives above the law, perks, plush buildings, limousines, etc., etc.)”
The glass half empty.
But I’d rather examine the glass half full. Because we’ve been down much of this road before. And it was turned around.
In the late 1970s, the economy was bad, gas prices had tripled in six years, interest rates were usurious, Iran held our embassy workers hostage, economists scratched their heads over the contradictions of stagflation, and our president, Jimmy Carter, basically told us to expect less, dampen our hopes, and accept decline.
But the people refused. In 1980 they elected a president whose policies jump-started nearly a quarter century of sustained prosperity and general optimism.
More than his conservative ideology, his strength, his intuitive feel for leadership or his self-deprecating humor, Ronald Reagan knew how to harness a powerful force: the people of America. Away with pessimism, Reagan said, speaking of a city shining on a hill, calling forth the real nature – the optimistic nature -- of the American people.
Reagan is dead. But America – with its ideal – is not.
I call it the American DNA and I see it everywhere.
It’s in the great young people I teach on my college campus. It’s in the sterling courage and sense of duty among those I meet in our military (where did we find such people?).
It’s in the rookie political activists I come in contact with – people who recently have altered their lifestyles by running for office, working in campaigns, organizing grassroots activities, speaking in public, giving up their privacy.
It’s in the industrious, creative people who get up every morning and make things happen in spite of their leaders.
The DNA of America.
It’s the glass half full.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Onto Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Required
In his recent speech to the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama quoted the words of Jesus in Luke 12:48 that unto whom much is given, much is required.
The President emphasized the responsibility of those who are materially blessed to take care of those in need. And Mr. Obama is correct: the New Testament clearly commands those who are rich to share what they have.
Indeed, in his telling of Christians at Ephesus to not steal but to work, the Apostle Paul says the proceeds of that work will allow the individual to give to those in need. And Paul writes to his disciple, Timothy, about wealth distribution. Timothy, Paul says, is to charge the wealthy to “do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate” [in the context of money].
So the President has it right -- the Bible teaches that the rich are to give of their goods to the poor.
Except for one thing.
Mr. Obama made his statement in reference to increasing taxes. And there is no virtue in government forcefully taking wealth to help the poor.
No virtue. None.
An overriding principle of biblical giving is that it should be voluntary. Always. Voluntary giving is virtuous -- Paul wrote to the Corinthians of the incredible personal benefit it was to them because they were providing for those in need, doing it willingly, not out of a sense of obligation. Even in his calls for “equality” of goods among believers (“your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want”), an overriding thrust was that of giving freely and willingly.
Some might say the concept of willful giving is negated by the New Testament account of Ananias and Sapphira whom God struck dead because they did not pool all their possessions with others in the church. Careful reading of the story indicates they were judged not because they held money back, but because they lied about it.
Taxes may be a form of “giving,” but they are not about willingness. They are founded on force.
In the Old Testament, God outlined to the prophet Samuel the incredible burdens of taxation and obligation that a centralized monarchial system would bring to Israel. God’s view on taxation did not reflect a concept of virtue (although Jesus did say there was an obligation to pay taxes).
Using taxation for aiding the poor corrodes our individual and national character in several ways: 1) it represents a forced burden, thus a resentment, that can sometimes spill over into our attitudes regarding the poor; 2) it places a governmental layer between us and our personal obligation to people (“Why should I help that guy – there’s a government program to take care of him!”); 3) it lessens the resources we have to give to people, 4) it institutionalizes social programs in far-off state and federal capitals, putting them out of sight and out of mind 5) it creates self-serving government bureaucracies concerned more about their own perpetuation than their mission, 6) it creates too-large programs unable to address specific situations of people in need, and 7) it corrupts politicians and others seeking votes and patronage through government largess.
The argument can be made that without government programs, people would be sick, hungry, and homeless. I say just the opposite: despite decades of extensive government effort, people are still sick, hungry, and homeless. Big government poverty programs don’t work. And for the corrosive reasons I mentioned above, individuals, churches, and civic organizations are not always meeting their full potential to intervene.
There’s more to say on it, but not today.
Meanwhile, like so many attempts to present biblical precepts that eventually result in problems, President Obama at the prayer breakfast got it only partially right.
The problem is in the taxes.
The President emphasized the responsibility of those who are materially blessed to take care of those in need. And Mr. Obama is correct: the New Testament clearly commands those who are rich to share what they have.
Indeed, in his telling of Christians at Ephesus to not steal but to work, the Apostle Paul says the proceeds of that work will allow the individual to give to those in need. And Paul writes to his disciple, Timothy, about wealth distribution. Timothy, Paul says, is to charge the wealthy to “do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate” [in the context of money].
So the President has it right -- the Bible teaches that the rich are to give of their goods to the poor.
Except for one thing.
Mr. Obama made his statement in reference to increasing taxes. And there is no virtue in government forcefully taking wealth to help the poor.
No virtue. None.
An overriding principle of biblical giving is that it should be voluntary. Always. Voluntary giving is virtuous -- Paul wrote to the Corinthians of the incredible personal benefit it was to them because they were providing for those in need, doing it willingly, not out of a sense of obligation. Even in his calls for “equality” of goods among believers (“your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want”), an overriding thrust was that of giving freely and willingly.
Some might say the concept of willful giving is negated by the New Testament account of Ananias and Sapphira whom God struck dead because they did not pool all their possessions with others in the church. Careful reading of the story indicates they were judged not because they held money back, but because they lied about it.
Taxes may be a form of “giving,” but they are not about willingness. They are founded on force.
In the Old Testament, God outlined to the prophet Samuel the incredible burdens of taxation and obligation that a centralized monarchial system would bring to Israel. God’s view on taxation did not reflect a concept of virtue (although Jesus did say there was an obligation to pay taxes).
Using taxation for aiding the poor corrodes our individual and national character in several ways: 1) it represents a forced burden, thus a resentment, that can sometimes spill over into our attitudes regarding the poor; 2) it places a governmental layer between us and our personal obligation to people (“Why should I help that guy – there’s a government program to take care of him!”); 3) it lessens the resources we have to give to people, 4) it institutionalizes social programs in far-off state and federal capitals, putting them out of sight and out of mind 5) it creates self-serving government bureaucracies concerned more about their own perpetuation than their mission, 6) it creates too-large programs unable to address specific situations of people in need, and 7) it corrupts politicians and others seeking votes and patronage through government largess.
The argument can be made that without government programs, people would be sick, hungry, and homeless. I say just the opposite: despite decades of extensive government effort, people are still sick, hungry, and homeless. Big government poverty programs don’t work. And for the corrosive reasons I mentioned above, individuals, churches, and civic organizations are not always meeting their full potential to intervene.
There’s more to say on it, but not today.
Meanwhile, like so many attempts to present biblical precepts that eventually result in problems, President Obama at the prayer breakfast got it only partially right.
The problem is in the taxes.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Finally, Somebody Else Taking a Stand...
Recently I wrote how glad I was people involved with the internet were standing up against the federal government's ill-advised Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
Now another entity -- the Catholic Church -- is showing some backbone.
I'm told Catholic bishops have addressed all U. S. parishes regarding the federal government's demand that Catholic hospitals and other agencies fund abortion and contraceptives in their health care policies.
The new federal policy begins in a year; Catholics have twelve months to get their consciences in order.
The bishops say no.
Good for them.
Whatever one believes about abortion or contraception is not as relevant to this issue as is the question of conscience. Beginning with the First Amendment, we as a nation have respected conscience.
Over time, we made exemptions for people like the Amish regarding school attendance and military service; indeed, in the era of the military draft we allowed for alternative service for conscientous objectors.
Conscience, we knew, was sacred. It was a major component of the essence of the individual.
Respecting it has been basic to being American.
Even in the secular realm, we have respected conscience. Advertising agency executives, for instance, could decline to work on a specific account -- for tobacco, for instance, or a specific politician -- if they could not do so in good conscience. Of course, abstain from too many accounts and an executive would be invited to work elsewhere. But at least there has been a provision for respecting that person's conscience.
In journalism, reporters writing stories could, for whatever reason (maybe they opposed how their story had been edited), ask that their bylines be omitted from the story. In other words, they would do their job, but not sign their names to it.
Conscience.
It is important.
But now we're told the Catholic Church must adjust its beliefs to fit the ideas of Those Who Know Best.
And they're saying no.
Good.
I'm with them on this.
For conscience' sake.
Now another entity -- the Catholic Church -- is showing some backbone.
I'm told Catholic bishops have addressed all U. S. parishes regarding the federal government's demand that Catholic hospitals and other agencies fund abortion and contraceptives in their health care policies.
The new federal policy begins in a year; Catholics have twelve months to get their consciences in order.
The bishops say no.
Good for them.
Whatever one believes about abortion or contraception is not as relevant to this issue as is the question of conscience. Beginning with the First Amendment, we as a nation have respected conscience.
Over time, we made exemptions for people like the Amish regarding school attendance and military service; indeed, in the era of the military draft we allowed for alternative service for conscientous objectors.
Conscience, we knew, was sacred. It was a major component of the essence of the individual.
Respecting it has been basic to being American.
Even in the secular realm, we have respected conscience. Advertising agency executives, for instance, could decline to work on a specific account -- for tobacco, for instance, or a specific politician -- if they could not do so in good conscience. Of course, abstain from too many accounts and an executive would be invited to work elsewhere. But at least there has been a provision for respecting that person's conscience.
In journalism, reporters writing stories could, for whatever reason (maybe they opposed how their story had been edited), ask that their bylines be omitted from the story. In other words, they would do their job, but not sign their names to it.
Conscience.
It is important.
But now we're told the Catholic Church must adjust its beliefs to fit the ideas of Those Who Know Best.
And they're saying no.
Good.
I'm with them on this.
For conscience' sake.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
SOPA -- Just Say No.
In 1980 Alvin Toffler in his classic book The Third Wave predicted that the coming digital age would radically alter the world as did the industrial revolution. While Toffler at the time did not know the word “internet,” he predicted with amazing accuracy how networked computers would change our lives by the year 2000.
That digital change has smashed the business models of travel agencies, movie studios, record producers, the post office, newspapers, photography (imagine, Kodak bankrupt), and telecommunications. Despite the technical progress, legal concepts of intellectual property now lag. They are in an era of big media corporations used to being protected by barriers to entry like locomotive-sized printing presses, broadcast towers reaching a third of a mile into the sky, multimillion dollar production equipment, and century old concepts of distribution systems.
But it’s all changing.
Rapidly.
Now a 14-year-old in his bedroom can operate an electronic newspaper, a television and radio station, an editing suite for his garage band or movie production, and a retailing company. Or he can run it all out of his backpack or back pocket -- even Toffler failed to foresee tablets and smart phones (neither did Star Trek, for that matter).
But the legacy media are fighting back.
Threatened by cheap technology and the obsolescence of a distribution system going back to the sales of sheet music, record labels launched lawsuits on their customers. People just want to steal our product, they cried. Not entirely true, as Steve Jobs demonstrated with iTunes, which had seven-figure sales its very first week. Jobs knew most people are willing to pay for a product when it is marketed using contemporary technology.
Then there was the notorious Righthaven, a Las Vegas law firm that would sue individuals posting online articles from Righthaven’s client newspapers. No warning, no takedown notice, just a lawsuit for $75,000 and perhaps confiscation of your domain name. And then Righthaven would be willing to settle for a few thousand dollars. Righthaven’s founder bragged that it was a great business plan – go to court or settle, he couldn’t lose. But he did when a federal court revealed Righthaven was in a partnership with a newspaper publisher and was not entitled to file copyright suits. But perhaps Righthaven is an extreme case – it was not about copyright protection; it was about legal extortion or what Wired magazine called “copyright trolling.”
Which brings us to something more ominous than a rogue law firm or tone deaf record companies (no pun intended) suing the customers -- the proposed federal Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and companion Protect IP Act (PIPA). The basic thrust of SOPA is that internet providers like Google or YouTube will become civilly or criminally liable for posting material that violates copyright.
Copyright protection is important. And copyright holders should have the right to go after those infringing upon those copyrights. No argument there. But holding internet providers liable will destroy the basic function of the internet – free exchange of information. With the millions of pieces of information moving around the net, there is no way internet service providers can police it all for copyright infringement.
Internet service providers, like transportation companies and utilities, are common carriers. They are open to all who desire their services and they cannot be held liable for unknowingly allowing criminal activity to flourish through their services.
For example, if an escaping convict buys a bus ticket, the bus company – if it does not know the person is an escapee -- must provide transportation. It cannot be held liable for aiding in an escape. It would be ludicrous for the bus company to do criminal background checks on every passenger wanting to ride (Shhhh – don’t give the Transportation Security Administration any ideas).
If a person has a house and seeks electric or gas service, the common carrier utilities must provide it, assuming bills are paid. The utilities are not liable if a person uses the house to run a meth lab because under normal circumstances they could not know. (Although Homeland Security is seeking a change: “If you see something, say something” they whisper to the electric meter reader).
At this writing, members of Congress are backing off their support of SOPA. Constituents are complaining and when thousands of web sites went dark on January 18 it presumably got the message across. But that did not stop the U. S. Justice Department on January 20 from announcing criminal indictments against people involved in the Megaupload file sharing site and shutting down the site. Which raises the question: if the feds can already make such a move (and have people in New Zealand and other countires arrested for alleged piracy), who needs SOPA? And is all this criminal activity? As Megaupload defense attorney Ira Rothkin said: “It’s a civil case in disguise.”
There needs to be copyright protection. We have courts for that. If I post a Disney short online, Disney can come after me. But leave YouTube out of it. And, of course, there are already laws on the books regarding libel, terroristic threatening, pornography, etc. They can be applied to the internet with perhaps some minimal – minimal! – tinkering to adjust to technological realities.
Besides legacy media calling for extreme steps in copyright protection, there are also two possible back stories regarding SOPA. One is that it’s all about control. Governments hate – hate! – the freewheeling communication offered by the internet. Threats of copyright-related indictments will slow down the exchange of free information. That makes big government happy.
The other possible back story of SOPA is the opportunity for lots of litigation. With so many lawyers in Congress, litigation is a language they readily understand. Perhaps the bill shouldn’t be called SOPA, but “FEFLA:” the Full Employment for Lawyers Act. Lots of money to be made holding deep pocket internet service providers like Google liable.
A positive thing about the SOPA issue was how internet providers responded. Some shut down for a day. It was not enough to disrupt things, but it caused some inconvenience and got the message across.
Finally, businesses decided to stand up to the increasing control of the federal government. It’s about time.
Farmers, oil companies, and truckers are you paying attention?
That digital change has smashed the business models of travel agencies, movie studios, record producers, the post office, newspapers, photography (imagine, Kodak bankrupt), and telecommunications. Despite the technical progress, legal concepts of intellectual property now lag. They are in an era of big media corporations used to being protected by barriers to entry like locomotive-sized printing presses, broadcast towers reaching a third of a mile into the sky, multimillion dollar production equipment, and century old concepts of distribution systems.
But it’s all changing.
Rapidly.
Now a 14-year-old in his bedroom can operate an electronic newspaper, a television and radio station, an editing suite for his garage band or movie production, and a retailing company. Or he can run it all out of his backpack or back pocket -- even Toffler failed to foresee tablets and smart phones (neither did Star Trek, for that matter).
But the legacy media are fighting back.
Threatened by cheap technology and the obsolescence of a distribution system going back to the sales of sheet music, record labels launched lawsuits on their customers. People just want to steal our product, they cried. Not entirely true, as Steve Jobs demonstrated with iTunes, which had seven-figure sales its very first week. Jobs knew most people are willing to pay for a product when it is marketed using contemporary technology.
Then there was the notorious Righthaven, a Las Vegas law firm that would sue individuals posting online articles from Righthaven’s client newspapers. No warning, no takedown notice, just a lawsuit for $75,000 and perhaps confiscation of your domain name. And then Righthaven would be willing to settle for a few thousand dollars. Righthaven’s founder bragged that it was a great business plan – go to court or settle, he couldn’t lose. But he did when a federal court revealed Righthaven was in a partnership with a newspaper publisher and was not entitled to file copyright suits. But perhaps Righthaven is an extreme case – it was not about copyright protection; it was about legal extortion or what Wired magazine called “copyright trolling.”
Which brings us to something more ominous than a rogue law firm or tone deaf record companies (no pun intended) suing the customers -- the proposed federal Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and companion Protect IP Act (PIPA). The basic thrust of SOPA is that internet providers like Google or YouTube will become civilly or criminally liable for posting material that violates copyright.
Copyright protection is important. And copyright holders should have the right to go after those infringing upon those copyrights. No argument there. But holding internet providers liable will destroy the basic function of the internet – free exchange of information. With the millions of pieces of information moving around the net, there is no way internet service providers can police it all for copyright infringement.
Internet service providers, like transportation companies and utilities, are common carriers. They are open to all who desire their services and they cannot be held liable for unknowingly allowing criminal activity to flourish through their services.
For example, if an escaping convict buys a bus ticket, the bus company – if it does not know the person is an escapee -- must provide transportation. It cannot be held liable for aiding in an escape. It would be ludicrous for the bus company to do criminal background checks on every passenger wanting to ride (Shhhh – don’t give the Transportation Security Administration any ideas).
If a person has a house and seeks electric or gas service, the common carrier utilities must provide it, assuming bills are paid. The utilities are not liable if a person uses the house to run a meth lab because under normal circumstances they could not know. (Although Homeland Security is seeking a change: “If you see something, say something” they whisper to the electric meter reader).
At this writing, members of Congress are backing off their support of SOPA. Constituents are complaining and when thousands of web sites went dark on January 18 it presumably got the message across. But that did not stop the U. S. Justice Department on January 20 from announcing criminal indictments against people involved in the Megaupload file sharing site and shutting down the site. Which raises the question: if the feds can already make such a move (and have people in New Zealand and other countires arrested for alleged piracy), who needs SOPA? And is all this criminal activity? As Megaupload defense attorney Ira Rothkin said: “It’s a civil case in disguise.”
There needs to be copyright protection. We have courts for that. If I post a Disney short online, Disney can come after me. But leave YouTube out of it. And, of course, there are already laws on the books regarding libel, terroristic threatening, pornography, etc. They can be applied to the internet with perhaps some minimal – minimal! – tinkering to adjust to technological realities.
Besides legacy media calling for extreme steps in copyright protection, there are also two possible back stories regarding SOPA. One is that it’s all about control. Governments hate – hate! – the freewheeling communication offered by the internet. Threats of copyright-related indictments will slow down the exchange of free information. That makes big government happy.
The other possible back story of SOPA is the opportunity for lots of litigation. With so many lawyers in Congress, litigation is a language they readily understand. Perhaps the bill shouldn’t be called SOPA, but “FEFLA:” the Full Employment for Lawyers Act. Lots of money to be made holding deep pocket internet service providers like Google liable.
A positive thing about the SOPA issue was how internet providers responded. Some shut down for a day. It was not enough to disrupt things, but it caused some inconvenience and got the message across.
Finally, businesses decided to stand up to the increasing control of the federal government. It’s about time.
Farmers, oil companies, and truckers are you paying attention?
Monday, December 26, 2011
Barack Obama: Bush-Reagan-Kennedy Tax Cutter?
One of the amazing arguments last week in the ludicrous fight over continuation of the 2 percent so-called payroll tax cut came from President Obama. Such a tax cut, the President said, was necessary to stimulate the economy.
I couldn't believe my ears.
Cutting taxes stimulates the economy? Mr. President, we thought you'd never come around!
That was George W. Bush's position in favor of his famous tax cuts. It was the argument Ronald Reagan made that resulted in a great quarter-century economic boom. It was also part of President Kennedy's effort to pull the country out of the sluggish economy that spilled over from the waning Eisenhower years.
But, alas, the President's new economic insights evaporated. Within a day or so, another story came out of the White House. It's almost as if the President or his advisors realized that it was not in his interests to be talking like Bush-Reagan-Kennedy. As a result, Obama trotted out the old Democratic demonstration of victimization: the family that couldn't buy pizza or visit an ailing relative because mean, evil Republicans wouldn't give them a tax break.
Looks like it worked --again, Lucy moved the football and the Charlie Brown Republicans fell for it and caved.
But it was ironic and fun to hear President Obama torpedo Democratic and Keynesian dogma by saying tax cuts stimulate the economy.
For the record, this whole nonsense over the continuance of a 2 percent tax reduction is ridiculous. Especially when the reduction extends for all of two months! Not a lot of pizza to buy in that scenario.
First of all, the payroll tax should never have been cut in the first place. Because, as we are told, that money coming out of our paychecks is technically not a tax -- it has traditionally been called a "contribution."
We are "contributing" money for our Social Security. And, as Al Gore told us, that "contribution" then goes to a "lockbox," waiting for that wonderful day when we receive a pension from it.
I know, I know -- but bear with me, Alice, we're in the federal wonderland for the moment.
So reducing the amount we "contribute" to Social Security is no more in our interests than reducing how much we put into a 401k or IRA.
Which means this was not an argument about a tax cut; rather, it was a smoke-and-mirrors game about how much we would be contributing to the federal retirement program -- a program designed to personally benefit us.
Of course, we all know Congress regularly breaks the lock on the lockbox and raids the Social Security funds for its own purposes. But given the realities of Social Security underfunding, there's no need that We the People should take part in the looting, too. Better to skip the pizza today in order to take care of our needs for tomorrow.
I realize this is all theoretical -- that the Social Security Trust Fund is a myth, as is the lockbox, and you'd better not scrimp on your "contributions" or people with guns and no sense of humor will show up on your door.
But for some of us, unlike people in federal government, words mean things. Humor me, if you will, in my beliefs in the myths, but continued underfunding of Social Security is not in our interests.
Thus, the payroll tax cut was a mistake, it never should have been continued, and the fact that the extension goes only two months shows what a silly, cynical game this is.
Even when you throw in pizza...
I couldn't believe my ears.
Cutting taxes stimulates the economy? Mr. President, we thought you'd never come around!
That was George W. Bush's position in favor of his famous tax cuts. It was the argument Ronald Reagan made that resulted in a great quarter-century economic boom. It was also part of President Kennedy's effort to pull the country out of the sluggish economy that spilled over from the waning Eisenhower years.
But, alas, the President's new economic insights evaporated. Within a day or so, another story came out of the White House. It's almost as if the President or his advisors realized that it was not in his interests to be talking like Bush-Reagan-Kennedy. As a result, Obama trotted out the old Democratic demonstration of victimization: the family that couldn't buy pizza or visit an ailing relative because mean, evil Republicans wouldn't give them a tax break.
Looks like it worked --again, Lucy moved the football and the Charlie Brown Republicans fell for it and caved.
But it was ironic and fun to hear President Obama torpedo Democratic and Keynesian dogma by saying tax cuts stimulate the economy.
For the record, this whole nonsense over the continuance of a 2 percent tax reduction is ridiculous. Especially when the reduction extends for all of two months! Not a lot of pizza to buy in that scenario.
First of all, the payroll tax should never have been cut in the first place. Because, as we are told, that money coming out of our paychecks is technically not a tax -- it has traditionally been called a "contribution."
We are "contributing" money for our Social Security. And, as Al Gore told us, that "contribution" then goes to a "lockbox," waiting for that wonderful day when we receive a pension from it.
I know, I know -- but bear with me, Alice, we're in the federal wonderland for the moment.
So reducing the amount we "contribute" to Social Security is no more in our interests than reducing how much we put into a 401k or IRA.
Which means this was not an argument about a tax cut; rather, it was a smoke-and-mirrors game about how much we would be contributing to the federal retirement program -- a program designed to personally benefit us.
Of course, we all know Congress regularly breaks the lock on the lockbox and raids the Social Security funds for its own purposes. But given the realities of Social Security underfunding, there's no need that We the People should take part in the looting, too. Better to skip the pizza today in order to take care of our needs for tomorrow.
I realize this is all theoretical -- that the Social Security Trust Fund is a myth, as is the lockbox, and you'd better not scrimp on your "contributions" or people with guns and no sense of humor will show up on your door.
But for some of us, unlike people in federal government, words mean things. Humor me, if you will, in my beliefs in the myths, but continued underfunding of Social Security is not in our interests.
Thus, the payroll tax cut was a mistake, it never should have been continued, and the fact that the extension goes only two months shows what a silly, cynical game this is.
Even when you throw in pizza...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
