Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Policy Page 34 of 35

You can never be too cynical

A few months ago, I remember hearing radio stories about the administration placing a cache of Iraqi gov’t (pre-invasion) documents up on the web, hoping to “leverage” the power of the internet in analyzing the documents. I pretty much dismissed it out of hand as a publicity stunt – they’d never actually throw information out there that they hadn’t already vetted, right?

Wrong. Says the NYT:

“[T]he site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.”

Now, perhaps this is the not uncommon press hysteric (you can find out how to build a bong on the Internets!) that likes to sex up pretty much any piece of generally available information. But if this is what it appears to be . . . jesus. Have we passed the high crimes and misdemeanors threshold, yet?

Tim Wu on YouTube

Tim Wu has a great piece on Slate, arguing that YouTube greatly benefits from the notice and takedown processes provided by the much (and rightly) reviled DMCA. Much as he’s done with net neutrality issues, Tim’s done an excellent job of describing the crux of the issue:

[M]uch of the copyrighted material on YouTube is in a legal category that is new to our age. It’s not “fair use,” the famous right to use works despite technical infringement, for reasons of public policy. Instead, it’s in the growing category of “tolerated use”—use that is technically illegal, but tolerated by the owner because he wants the publicity. If that sounds as weird as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” you’re getting the idea. The industry is deeply conflicted about mild forms of piracy—trapped somewhere between its pathological hatred of “pirates” and its lust for the buzz piracy can build.

Read the whole thing for a short and illuminating history of the laws and policy arguments that brought us to this point.

If you’re as interested in this as I am, jump over to Tim’s site, where a conversation on the concept of “tolerated use” seems to be developing.

So, do we get to

conduct midnight smash n’ grabs into the homes of the Congressmen that put together the TSA system that doesn’t work? Or is that just something we reserve for the people that point out what a pointless mess the TSA has made?

The politics of responsibility

Republicans are forever praising the concept of taking responsibility. You’re poor? Sick? Unlucky? That’s all your responsibility. Get hurt and are suddenly faced with $100k in medical bills you never asked for? Your responsibility.

Funny how that tune changes when it comes to corporate responsibility. Then it’s all over-regulation! Trial lawyers! Stymied innovation! Utter bullshit. If Republicans held corporations to the same standard of responsibility they do an unwed mother of two, I just might vote Republican.

As Ezra points out, it’s all about power, not principle.

Can’t Stop the Signal

So I’m a big Joss Whedon fan. Since, say, the second episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Go ahead, laugh – it’s your loss. Whedon’s creative talents have just kept getting better and better, earning himself an incredibly devoted fan base. One so devoted that he credits them with being a significant part of the reason he was able to make Serenity, a movie based on the abruptly canceled Firefly television series. Serenity’s storyline revolved around a group of exiles working against the authorities to make sure that a truth isn’t buried. That storyline is woven around a central message – the truth is a signal that can’t be stopped.

Unlike many (most?) successful director/writers, Whedon has a very positive and active relationship with his fans. And that relationship worked to great benefit for both him and his fans when it came to Serenity. For his part, Whedon kept fans up to date during production, dropped lots of hints without spoiling the story, and invited an enormous number of fans to screenings of the movie while it was still in post-production. What did the fans offer in return? An amazing amount of time and energy devoted to promoting the movie. Not just word-of-mouth “oh, yeah, go see that, it’s good”, but an extraordinary effort by people who simply wanted others to share in wonderful storytelling. People gathered up friends for the screenings, they talked it up in local media, and produced some incredibly well done derivative promotional materials.

Like what? Well, I can tell you – posters, bags, clothing. Some of it was simple, and some of it was amazing. But I can’t show you. Why not? These devoted fans have been shut down. Over a year after Serenity’s successful release, Universal’s lawyers have come to town, and not only want these fans to quit supporting the movie, they want money. In at least one case, the opening demand appears to be $9000. Nice, eh?

Yes, in return for all that devotion, all that hard work, all that energy – Universal is billing fans. They could have simply come out and said “Okay, folks, we know that we’ve traditionally turned a blind eye to this, but we have companies paying us for exclusive rights, and you need to stop now. We know that Joss has even encouraged you to make these things, but it’s not his decision. It’s ours. Thanks for your help, and we know you’ll understand.” No, instead my brethren at the bar embarrass me (yet again) by opening up with nasty demand letters and intimidation tactics. Aimed big guns at people who would have stopped with a simple request. A favorite tactic of the industry, sadly.

But I doubt they’ve ever been on the receiving end of an invoice in response. That’s right, fans have retroactively invoiced Universal for their marketing and promotional services. Can’t stop the signal.

Security Theater, Part 27

Rep. Ed Markey’s a bit upset that Chris Soghoian has done his part to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Uninformed outrage is eversomuch easier than actually, you know, fixing the problem.

Update: In keeping with the theme that illusions of security are far more important that actual security, Congressional Quarterly reports that “[t]wo former House committee investigators who were examining Capitol Hill security upgrades said a senior aide to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert hindered their efforts before they were abruptly ordered to stop their probe last year.” You can never been too cynical about these people.

Further update: The “emperor has no clothes” link above no longer works. It was a web-page that illustrated how simple it is to generate a fake boarding pass that can be used to enter the gate areas of airports. It appears to have been taken down after an FBI visit to the page’s author. Boing Boing keeps us apprised.

It matters to *all* of us.

Please spread this far and wide.

Winning Without the South

Tom Schaller is over at TPMCafe , outlining the central argument of his book “Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South.”  It’s an interesting thesis – that in order to build a solid governing majority in the United States, the Democrats should stop spending time and effort on races in the South.  It’s a theory that I’ve vacillated on over the years, myself.  And whatever one thinks of Tom’s ultimate prescription, he offers some important insight that everyone interested in rebuilding the Democratic Party should consider.  That said, Tom is just about the last person who should be delivering this argument.

How can I put it?  Tom’s approach is like . . . sending Anna Wintour into Charleston, sending Ted Kennedy to Montgomery, sending Jessie Ventura to Washington, well, obviously, I can’t come up with the metaphor.  So I’ll just excerpt something from TPM Cafe to illustrate the problem.  Tom is responding to charges (specifically from Dave Saunders and Steve Jarding, two southern Democratic strategists) that politically abandoning the South is simply immoral – that is, we (as citizens, as Democrats) have an obligation to try and improve everyone’s lot, no matter where they might live.  Tom says:

“A final point…I still cannot get Saunders, Jarding or any other proponent of recapturing the South to answer the simple question I raised in a recent American Prospect piece: How is it that working-class blacks and working class-whites living in the South who attend the same high school football games and restaurants on Friday night, run their errands at the same retail outlets on Saturday, attend similar (if different denominational) churches at the same rates on Sunday, and put their kids on the same public school buses on Monday, vote so differently come the first Tuesday every other November? Those who offer thundering, preachy sermons about the (im)morality of a non-southern strategy should first attempt to explain this seeming paradox without mentioning race. If they can, I’ll gladly sit down for their lectures; if not, perhaps their immorality objections ought to be directed at those whose votes are rooted in racial animosity.”

While Tom’s solution might well be the most efficient, he insists on wrapping it up in a bitter pill of condemnation and moral superiority that could make just about anyone choke.

(And speaking of choking, I was at the DailyKos convention session where Tom and Dave Saunders went head to head over this – I’ll see if I can find it on youtube (or get it up there, somehow).  One of the most entertaining things I’d seen in long time.)

Vote No, Virginia

Do something about it.

Shilling for Kazakhstan

Today’s Washington Post brings us a editorial from one S. Frederick Starr, who admonishes us against criticizing Kazakstan, a despotic regime that is rife with human rights abuses. Starr rolls out what has become a tired refrain of his kind, amounting to “well, if we don’t buy their oil, someone else will!”
The piece only identifes Starr as “chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.” Harmless enough, yes? Harper’s has something that might interest the reader:

Starr, who is perhaps the [Uzbekistan President] Karimov regime’s most outspoken advocate in Washington—a regime that once tortured a political prisoner to death with methods that included the use of boiling water and then arrested his elderly mother when she complained. He also speaks fondly of several other despotic governments in central Asia, a region he views almost exclusively through the prism of American geopolitical interests and with little interest in issues like human rights and corruption.

Perhaps the Washington Post’s readers would like to know that. But hey, who am I to criticize, when – in a few short hours from now – my own legislature will vote to legalize torture and the indefinite detention of anyone, based solely upon the word of the President.

Page 34 of 35

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén