So Why Isn't he Named in the Philosphophers Song?

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, the author of, among others, “Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.” Provides us with a timely reminder of the debt we all owe to Spinoza and his relvance in today's world: "Reasonable Doubt", New York Times, July 29, 2006:

Spinoza argued that no group or religion could rightly claim infallible knowledge of the Creator’s partiality to its beliefs and ways. After the excommunication, he spent the rest of his life — he died in 1677 at the age of 44 — studying the varieties of religious intolerance. The conclusions he drew are still of dismaying relevance.

Spinoza’s reaction to the religious intolerance he saw around him was to try to think his way out of all sectarian thinking. He understood the powerful tendency in each of us toward developing a view of the truth that favors the circumstances into which we happened to have been born. Self-aggrandizement can be the invisible scaffolding of religion, politics or ideology.

Against this tendency we have no defense but the relentless application of reason. Reason must stand guard against the self-serving false entailments that creep into our thinking, inducing us to believe that we are more cosmically important than we truly are, that we have had bestowed upon us — whether Jew or Christian or Muslim — a privileged position in the narrative of the world’s unfolding.

Spinoza’s system is a long deductive argument for a conclusion as radical in our day as it was in his, namely that to the extent that we are rational, we each partake in exactly the same identity.

Spinoza’s faith in reason as our only hope and redemption is the core of his system, and its consequences reach out in many directions, including the political. Each of us has been endowed with reason, and it is our right, as well as our responsibility, to exercise it. Ceding this faculty to others, to the authorities of either the church or the state, is neither a rational nor an ethical option. [emphasis added] [ed. note: take that Pres. Bush!]

Which is why, for Spinoza, democracy was the most superior form of government — only democracy can preserve and augment the rights of individuals. The state, in helping each person to preserve his life and well-being, can legitimately demand sacrifices from us, but it can never relieve us of our responsibility to strive to justify our beliefs in the light of evidence.

It is for this reason that he argued that a government that impedes the development of the sciences subverts the very grounds for state legitimacy, which is to provide us physical safety so that we can realize our full potential. And this, too, is why he argued so adamantly against the influence of clerics in government. Statecraft infused with religion not only dissolves the justification for the state but is intrinsically unstable, since it must insist on its version of the truth against all others. [ed. note: slap GWB upside the head with a cold salmon]

* * * *

The Declaration of Independence, that extraordinary document first drafted by Thomas Jefferson, softly echoes Spinoza. John Locke, Spinoza’s contemporary — both were born in 1632 — is a more obvious influence on Jefferson than Spinoza was. But Locke had himself been influenced by Spinoza’s ideas on tolerance, freedom and democracy. . . . He now accepted, as he had not before, the fundamental egalitarian claim that the legitimacy of the state’s power derives from the consent of the governed, a phrase that would prominently find its way into the Declaration.

* * * *

If we can hear Locke’s influence in the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” (a variation on Adam Smith’s Locke-inspired “life, liberty and pursuit of property”), we can also catch the sound of Spinoza addressing us in Jefferson’s appeal to the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” This is the language of Spinoza’s universalist religion, which makes no reference to revelation, but rather to ethical truths that can be discovered through human reason.

Spinoza had argued that our capacity for reason is what makes each of us a thing of inestimable worth, demonstrably deserving of dignity and compassion. That each individual is worthy of ethical consideration is itself a discoverable law of nature, obviating the appeal to divine revelation. . . .

Spinoza’s dream of making us susceptible to the voice of reason might seem hopelessly quixotic at this moment, with religion-infested politics on the march. But imagine how much more impossible a dream it would have seemed on that day 350 years ago. And imagine, too, how much even sorrier our sorry world would have been without it.

Look Before You Leap; Read Before You Post

A healthy reminder to all those artists and songwriters out there.

The New York Times Reports:

Billy Bragg’s MySpace Protest Movement
By Robert Levine:

When he is not writing or performing protest songs, the British folk-rocker Billy Bragg is apparently reading the fine print.

In May, Mr. Bragg removed his songs from the MySpace.com Web site, complaining that the terms and conditions that MySpace set forth gave the social networking site far too much control over music that people uploaded to it. In media interviews and on his MySpace blog, he said that the MySpace terms of service made it seem as though any content posted on the site, including music, automatically became the site’s property.

Although MySpace had not claimed ownership of his music or any other content, Mr. Bragg said the site’s legal agreement — which included the phrase “a nonexclusive, fully paid and royalty-free worldwide license” — gave him cause for concern, as did the fact that the formerly independent site was now owned by a big company (the News Corporation, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch).

* * * *

About a month later, without referencing Mr. Bragg’s concerns, MySpace.com clarified its terms of service, which now explain who retains what rights. A sample line: “The license you grant to MySpace.com is nonexclusive (meaning you are free to license your content to anyone else in addition to MySpace.com).”

Jenny Toomey, executive director of the Future of Music Coalition, an advocacy group for musicians that focuses on intellectual property rights, said the Internet could help musicians warn one another about potential contractual problems. “Information is now shared in a different way,” she said, “and artists who are getting a bad deal can connect with each other.”

* * * *

To make it simple, the user agreement that you sign with MySpace grants them a copyright in anything you post. As indicated by the article, MySpace has made some changes, but whether they are sufficient to protect the value of the copyrighted work (a song, a photo, am image, a story, an idea) is an open question. The added language (“The license you grant to MySpace.com is nonexclusive (meaning you are free to license your content to anyone else in addition to MySpace.com).”) seems to say you can sell, or assign your interest in the copyrighted work . . . but they can too.

What's important is that the copyright language in the MySpace user agreement is not very unique, similar language can be found in the America Online terms of service and in many other mainstream social networking websites that allow you to post personal information. Some operator, probably of a less reputable web site, might see this oppotunity as a trap to unwary artists.

If you are posting your original songs, stories, poems, music, photos, paintings, images, or other copyrightable work on a third-party web site, you need to read the user agreement or service agreement very carefully with respect to its copyright provisions and how they may affect ownership of your own work. If the language raises questions in your mind, see an attorney.

The definition of Chutzpah

BAGHDAD, July 30 — Two high-ranking Iraqi government officials said Sunday that their country was fighting international terrorists on its own soil on behalf of other countries and should, as a result, be compensated with economic and military assistance.

So reports New York Times reporterPaul von Zielbauer in: Iraqi Officials Ask for Aid for Global War on Terror.

Am I the only one this reminds of the olds story of the child who kills his parents and than pleads mercy because he's an orphan? They've bred a home-grown civil war, and we've bred an insurgency devoted to driving us out. So far they've been content to kill each other. I would think the surest way to turn them into international terrorists would be to get more nations involved.

Okay, maybe that's a little glib.

In my humble opinion, what we really need is a Gulf States' equivalent of Nato or Seato (remember that one?) with participation from the US and EEC, that can send an international ARAB force into Iraq, comprised from the armies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran Syria (and yes, even Israel) etc. etc. and which would have the moral authority in that part of the world which the West simply lacks, to move in with authority and maintain peace in situations like those currently standing in Lebanon, Iraq (and Gaza? and the West Bank?).

Music Maestro - A Contrarian's View on the Legality of File Sharing Over P2P Networks - Part 1 of 2

As reported by the New York Times:

The music industry and Hollywood movie studios said Thursday that they had settled lawsuits against a longtime nemesis, the owner of the digital file-sharing network Kazaa, which will try to transform itself into a legitimate online distributor of films and music.

Sharman Networks, a privately held company that is incorporated in Vanuatu and operates Kazaa from Australia, agreed to pay $115 million to the major record companies and movie studios, which had accused Kazaa of aiding the illegal copying of music on the Internet.

* * * *

The music industry federation said that Sharman had agreed to license music from the four major recording companies — Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Warner Music and the EMI Group — that own the vast majority of music copyrights.

Record and Movie Industries Reach a Settlement With Kazaa, New York Times (July 28, 2006).

Thus another P2P network caves in to the strong-arm litigation tactics of the music industry and buys in to the starry-eye-inducing mega-profits to be gained by joining the anti-consumer monopoly which is the music distribution industry.

But in all the hoopla a serious disconnect has been overlooked between what companies such as Kazaa, Napster, and Grokster can and can not do with their software, and what individual consumers may be permitted to do with each other.

To what extent, if any, does the sharing of copyrighted files subject the individual sharer to liability for copyright infringement. This question has not been squarely answered except in a very few decisions of the Courts. Those decisions have unfortunately relied upon legal concepts applicable to "for-profit" software companies, to determine the liability of individual consumers. In my very humble personal opinion, those decisions are in error because the standards applicable to determine what individuals may do vary considerable from those applicable to companies looking to make a profit off of their actions.

The RIAA et al. have done such a good job of PR and of frightening people with potentially crippling lawsuits, that very few people even question whether sharing files constitutes infringement. Remarkably, the media industry has succeeded through PR in making millions of people believe they are "stealing" or "criminals" for doing something that most Americans and lawmakers have taken for granted is perfectly legal for generations.

Individuals have made and shared copies of recordings for decades from whatever medium they have been produced and no one has ever seriously questioned whether such copying was free from claims of infringement. Long before the advent of PC's the recording industry complained that 100's of millions of copies of copyrighted materials were being shared by individuals. Yet Congress has steadfastly refused to impose liability for the non-commercial copying of copyrighted materials by individual consumers. Indeed in 1992 Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act, which provides that:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Pub. L. No. 563, § 2, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992), codified at 17 U.S.C. § 1008 (2004)

Liability for copyright infringement is subject to what is known as the "fair use doctrine" - codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2004) which provides that:

the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In other words, an individual can not be held liable for infringement of copyright if the individual usage is considered fair after considering all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the four listed above.

Americans generally, and Congress specifically, has always deemed the non-commercial sharing of copyrighted materials to be a form of fair use. This general understanding was so deeply engrained in the mind of the average citizen, and the legal community that until the advent of P2P networks, not a single suit for civil liability had ever been brought against a consumer despite the recognition that 100's of millions of copyrighted songs and albums were being routinely copied (primarily on audio tape) and shared between friends and family members.

The extensive hype generated by the recording industry in the last few years has convinced an entirely too malleable public that suddenly millions of ordinary consumers are criminals. However, there has not been a single statute enacted, and until 2005 not a single court had ever held that the non-commercial sharing of copyrighted media constituted culpable infringement.

MGM v. Grokster, decided last year by the Supreme Court did not hold that non-commercial file-sharing by consumers constituted infringement (as a great many news reports, editorials and other PR have implied). The Court held only that a distributor of P2P software can be held liable if it advertises that the intent and purpose of its software is to enable copyright infringement. That is not the same thing as the sharing of media between two ordinary consumers, not by a longshot.

One or two decisions have been handed down since Grokster by lower courts that have found individual consumers are liabile. These cases have been, in my humble personal opinion, incorrectly decided. The few courts that have held individuals liable have wrongly applied the law applicable to companies like Grokster, to the sharing of songs between individual consumers. Effectively, these courts have turned millions of innocent consumers into criminals over night, despite the fact that (i) no statute clearly provides for such liability and (ii) no such liability had ever been anticipated by Congress, consumers or the music industry itself. An historic status quo that has continued since the advent of printed music, has been changed by judicial fiat.

This is the worst kind of "legislating" from the bench - If Congress had intended to turn millions of American consumers into thieves, it would have done so. Instead, however, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act to ensure that historic understandings regarding music copying and sharing between consumers for non-commercial purposes would remain intact in the digital era (unfortunately, several (computer illiterate) courts have adopted the rationale that a personal computer is not a "digital recording device.") Courts ought to be loathe to enact such far-reaching changes in the law in the absence of Congressional intent that the law be changed (or a valid Constitutional challenge).

An exceptionally well considered legal analysis is the brief prepared by Prof. J. Glynn Lunney, Jr. of the Tulane Univ. School of Law. and submitted in the Grokster case on behalf of several professors of copyright law (available on the web site of the Electronic Frontier Foundation). It is well worth the read. I won't repeat his arguments here. If you are interested, read the brief.

None of this means that the RIAA will not try to sue you if they catch you. What it means is that there is a good legal argument that the non-commercial trading of media files by the use of P2P software by ordinary consumers does not necessarily constitute copyright infringement. The RIAA and other media conglomerates have used their financial bully pulpit to frighten us and make us believe otherwise, because those who fight for consumers are underfunded and the legal arguments are not easily reduced to sound-bites.

Our response should not be to live in fear, or to seek technological fixes to hide our identities. Our response should be to stand up for our rights. To remind ourselves that our actions can not be criminalized by a media campaign but only by laws properly enacted by Congress.

I suppose I ought to provide a disclaimer here. I am a lawyer, but I am not trained in copyright law. The foregoing constitutes personal opinion and is in the nature of an editorial. It should not be taken as legal advice. The issues are complex and there is room for contrary arguments. You should obviously consult your own legal counsel if you have serious concerns over the legality of your P2P usage.

In some countries intellectual property issues are dealt with by the civil law, in some countries they are still a matter of common law, and in some they are a matter of criminal law. In some the issues may be resolved by a mix of civil and criminal liability. This post only relates to U.S. civil law.

Prof. Lunney's brief (supra) contains a useful list of countries in which file-sharing by consumers for non-commercial purposes may be considered legal, and that list is worth looking at if you are not in the U.S. However, that list is not by any means complete and, if you are out of the U.S. you should absolutely seek counsel from a qualified representative of the legal profession in your locality.

More on Signing Statements

There has been a fair amount in the press recently on President Bush's use of so-called "signing statements." The press has been fairly good about explaining the concept, but the lack of concrete examples in all of the articles I read left me feeling a little unsatisfied. So, here's a little more information:

A "signing statement" is a statement made by a President in connection with his signing of an act of legislation approved by both houses of Congress. These statements are often ceremonial and political in nature - an opportunity to acknowledge particular individuals or events.

However, other signing statements are used to put the President's own interpretation on a law (even if that interpretation is directly contrary to Congress') or to expresss the President's intent not to enforce the law, even though he is signing it.

The ABA has said this latter usage is contrary to the U.S. Constitution's requirement that:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 7, par. 2. In other words, the President has the choice of signing a bill into law, or vetoing it. The Constitution (that thing the President keeps saying liberal judges ignore), does not give the President the opportunity to pick and choose those parts of the law he is instead required to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3.

President Bush has issued signing statements objecting to 807 laws in his five and a half years in office. That's 200 more than all of the other presidents in U.S. History put together.

Some examples of signing statements in which President Bush has indicated he will not follow the law are: bills banning the use of U.S. troops in combat against rebels in Colombia; bills requiring reports to Congress when money from regular appropriations is diverted to secret operations; two bills forbidding the use in military intelligence of materials “not lawfully collected” in violation of the Fourth Amendment; a post-Abu Ghraib bill mandating new regulations for military prisons in which military lawyers were permitted to advise commanders on the legality of certain kinds of treatment even if the Department of Justice lawyers did not agree; bills requiring the retraining of prison guards in humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions, requiring background checks for civilian contractors in Iraq and banning contractors from performing security, law enforcement, intelligence and criminal justice functions.

* * * *

Congressional requirements to report back to Congress on the use of Patriot Act authority to secretly search homes and seize private papers; The McCain amendment forbidding any U.S. officials to use torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment on prisoners (the President said in his statement that as Commander in Chief he could waive any such requirement if necessary to prevent terrorist attacks); A requirement that government scientists transmit their findings to Congress uncensored, along with a guarantee that whistleblower employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will not be punished for providing information to Congress about safety issues in the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, at 15 -16.

I think the Constitution makes it fairly plain that the President either signs a law or he doesn't, but once he signs it, he has to enforce it. You can say all you want about checks and balances and separation of powers, but they have nothing to do with it. The check and balance in this case is the President's right to veto any bill put before him. Nothing in the Constitution (either explicitly or implicityly) gives the President the right to select, at his own discretion, which laws he chooses to follow. The quotations above prove quite the opposite.

Since the signing statement is not authorized by the Constitution, what is to prevent the President from abandoning the pretext of the signing statement and simply issuing notices of which laws he will and won't enforce? What is to prevent the President from arguing that he can disobey laws that other Presidents signed before him, the reason being that he would not have signed that law had he been President then, or would have at least issued a signing statement justifying his current position.

No one is above the law. No one should be. Not even (especially not) the President of the United States. I agree with the ABA. The President's use of the signing statement is nothing less than the assertion of the tyrannical authority to make the law subject to the will of one person alone. A practice condemned in the Declaration of Independance, the U.S. Constitution, and in every civil society.

To read more about signing statements, including the full text of George W. Bush's signing statements and others from the previous 100 years check out:

Presidential Signing Statements 2001 - 2006; George W. Bush

The American Presidency Project: Presidential Signing Statements

Above the Law

No, I don't mean Steven Seagal. I am talking, of course, about President Bush's use of so-called "signing statements" to claim that he is not required to enforce laws duly authorized by both houses of Congress and signed by him.

As reported July 24 in the New York Times,

The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

* * * *

In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them.

The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president “must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.”

Legal Group Says Bush Undermines Law by Ignoring Select Parts of Bills, New York Times, July 24, 2006.

In other words, George W. Bush has stated, on more than 800 occasions (almost once a day), that he, as President, is above the law.

The full text of the ABA Report is 34 pages long and is available as a .PDF file on the ABA's web site at Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

I Didn't Know Buffalos HAD Wings

A "boneless buffalo wing" is not a wing . . . especially when it's made of 100% breast meat. Newsflash, KFC - that's a chicken nugget.

The Beginning of the End in Iraq?

President Bush today announced the circling of the wagons in Iraq.

Given the chaos in Baghdad, it was only a question of time before more troops would be needed to patrol that city. Only problem is we've got no troops to put in. Oh, I'm sure that more troops could be rotated in from other countries, more national guard called up, recruitment standards lowered further. But I suspect a more sinister, more cynical reason for today's new plan to calm Baghdad -

George Bush is unwilling to commit more troops because he is afraid it will be the death knell to republicans in the fall election.

Can there be any other reason? Is the rest of Iraq calm? Will pulling troops back into Baghdad result in the places from which they are removed more or less safe?

More to the point, won't circling the wagons around Baghdad signal the insurgents in Iraq that they are winning? George W. has time and time and time and again refused to present a plan or strategic timetable or even clear objectives for troop withdrawals because, he said, that would give aid and comfort to the enemy. He said it would encourage the insurgents.

And now it is Bush who is circling wagons - that says "cut and run" to me far more than anything that the Democrats (even John Kerry) had proposed. Pulling our troops back to the capital city, which should have been one of the safe ones, instead of sending reinforcements (or admit they need reinforcements). . . Can anyone read this news and not envision helicoptors circling the American embassy in Hanoi, desperate refugees spilling over the sides against a setting sun?

Now mind you, I've been against this war from the very beginning. I'm not saying I want the president to commit more troops. I want the troops home. I want them home now. Yesterday. But Bush has bungled this war as badly as he bungled every private company he owned or directed before getting into politics (trading Sammy Sosa, sheesh). He's made the situation so bad I no longer am sure whether it is worse to leave our troops there and send in more, or to pull them out now.

But Bush these days looks more and more like a dog with his tail between his legs, cowering in the corner because he pissed the rug again. I wonder whether even he believes his own rhetoric anymore?

Is he going to give up in Iraq? There are still two years to his administration. Who knows.

But I know this. By failing to reinforce our troops at this juncture, by pulling troops back to Iraq, by encouraging the insurgency, George W. is putting more troops in greater harm's way - sacrificing them to try and save a few republican congressional seats in the fall.

And that is just plain murder.

"The Murderers Ought to Be Called to Account"

To quote from George W.'s press conference today . . . and he's the biggest murderer in the world today. If only someone would catch him getting a blowjob.

If you don't like the news - create your own

I know that the Bush administration has turned this old organizers' adage into an art form, but I wonder if the intent of Bush's fevered maneuvering is as crazy as my paranoid fantasies can imagine.

Think about it. The Camp David negotiations between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United States under President Clinton did not achieve peace - but they came close. There can be no doubt that this near miss was the result of President Clinton's insistence on keeping the process going and the parties talking. Who knows what might have happened if the process could have continued for another 30 or 60 days?

The failure of these negotiations was not the fault of the parties. It can not be blamed solely on the intransigence of one side, or one side's unwillingness to give up any particular demand (what Ronald Reagan called 'bargaining chips").

The failure of these negotiations was entirely the fault of George W. Bush who decided, upon reaching office, that negotiations were not worth continuining and that he would not meet with a "terrorist organization". So the U.S. walked away from the process and refused to meet with a representative of the Palestinian people until Yasser Arafat was dead. (Hip, hip hooray for Georgie - he really proved his point. He punished Yasser Arafat - by denying him the opportunity to see peace in his time, and instead let a human catastrophe fester, at the cost of how many lives?).

Sometimes I wonder whether 9/11 would have happened at all if Bush had even tried to meet with a palestinian representative during his first nine months in office?

Then, for no good reason at all, Bush attacked Iraq. Iraq which had no WMD's, no terrorist insurgency, a relatively modernized civilization in which certain rights were even protected (like the right of women to wear western dress and to appear in the street without a family member).

And he attacked Iraq, despite the best advice of all of his generals, and all of the knowledge and experience of the US' greatest allies. And he did it with far fewer troops than he was told were necessary to do the job right. And he didn't give our soldiers enough armor. He didn't direct the army to secure the arms and ammo and other munitions supply dumps that they found (because they weren't WMD's) - the contents of which are still being used against our troops.

And there is no one today who can reasonably argue that Iraqis are better off than they were before the war.

And Bush's actions in Iraq effectively sabotaged the U.S. ability to respond to real threats like Iran and Korea, both of which now thumb their noses at the U.S. and its allies, well aware that we can not respond militarily.

And when Bush's intransigence, and his failure to encourage the peace process boiled over into the frustration that led to the election of Hamas, Bush broke the promises that the US had made to the Palestinian Authority - so much for free and democratic elections.

And now that Israel has invaded Lebanon - George W. Bush is the ONLY world leader so insane that he is arguing AGAINST a cease-fire. Who cares if hundreds of innocent civilians are dying anyway?

The mid-east is a bubbling cauldron, a stew of hate and frustration and despair and anger, and George W. Bush is the chief cook, stirring the pot with a very large ladle.

If I didn't know better (and I'm not sure that I do), I'd say President Bush was TRYING to bring about the complete collapse of the mid-east.

And this is where my paranoid fantasies kick in. WHY would the President do such a thing?

I don't believe that George W. Bush is the President of America. No, I don't mean he didn't really win the election, or that he cheated, or that the Supreme Court handed it to him (all of which I believe are true), or that he's really just Cheney's puppet (which has more than a grain of truth I suspect). I mean that George W. Bush is an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN FIRST AND AN AMERICAN SECOND. George W. Bush does not believe in the creed of the founders of this great nation. He does not believe in the freedoms that are expected in this country, he has assumed for himself powers (such as arrest without warrant, opening mail, wire-tapping, torture, lies, etc.) that are only worthy of dictators. George Bush first and foremost represents his faith, and then America. That's why I say he is not an American President.

But returning to my question. Why would anyone want the Mid-east to be such a powder-keg and I come to only one conclusion.

That conclusion is informed by the only people who seem to be happy with the Mid-east crisis - evangelical christians who believe, according to the book of revelations, that the end of days will begin with war in the Mid-East.

Well, is it possible that the insanity of the Bush Administration's policy in the Mid-east really harbors the bizarre agenda of forcing the second coming of Christ? Is George W. so cracy he really hopes to create the war that leads to the Rapture? Let's face some ugly facts: George W. IS born-again. George W. believes in the literal truth of the Bible. George W. does not even believe in evolution. He lives in a fantasy world, divorced from reality, in which he has been given near absolute power, hears no opposition, and reads no news he doesn't like.

So, is it entirely impossible that George thinks he can, if not force the hand of God, at least give it a little help. . . after all, if God made him President, than God (he/she/it) must have had a purpose in doing so.

Is Bush as crazy as my paranoid fantasy? Probably not.

But I never thought I saw the number of the beast marked so clearly by someone's actions.

The Backrub from Hell

It's just so delicious. The video clip of President Bush putting the moves on German Chancellor Angela Merkel - and her reaction - whatever she may say about him publicly, the look on her face said everything.

What was he thinking? Would he have, even for a moment, considered walking up behind Vladimir Putin and, uninvited, start to rub his shoulders? I know of bondage clubs where the people have better etiquette.

The Times ran a nice article reviewing some of the great comments on the web (someone needs to remind Bush he's at the G-8 summit, not a fraternity kegger) with links to the video clip. Bush's Back Rub Magnified in Cyberspace

Maureen Dowd just tore Bush a new one over for this (good for her). Her fabulous op ed column
is Animal House Summit, New York Times, July 19, 2006. I have three words for Maureen. . . You go grrrrl (okay, I have more words, but I thought I should put it in simple language the President would understand.

Gay Parents - Better than All the Rest?

Kenji Yoshiro, a professor at Yale Law School brilliantly skewered New York's Court of Appeals' decision in Hernandez v. Robles (which held that the Statewide ban on same-sex marriages does not violate the State or Federal Constitution). See Yoshiro, Kenji, Too Good for Marriage, New York Times, July 14, 2006.

Prof. Yoshiro notes that the decision relies on two critical determinations one of which he refers to as the "reckless procreation" rationale. He explains:

“Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples.”

To shore up those rickety heterosexual arrangements, “the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.” Lest we miss the inversion of stereotypes about gay relationships here, the opinion lamented that straight relationships are “all too often casual or temporary.”

Yes, behind every grey cloud is a silver lining. Who would have thought the Court's irrational opinion could be used to support the proposition that same-sex relationships were more stable than hetero ones - or that the children of such couples were less likely to need special protections. Justice Smith probably choked when he read the column.

Truth Remains Stranger than Fiction

this spring . . . two teams of physicists at Fermilab succeeded in measuring a particularly odd schizophrenic particle, known as the strange neutral B meson, that flips back and forth between being itself and its own opposite antiparticle three trillion times a second. Weird as that behavior is, it was right on the money as predicted by the Standard Model.

''Our real hope was for something bizarre,'' admitted Young-Kee Kim of the University of Chicago and a spokeswoman for one of the Fermilab teams.

ESSAY; Physics Awaits New Options As Standard Model Idles, NY Times, July 4, 2006.

Something "more" bizarre than a particle that turns into its own opposite and back three trillion times a second?

Does anyone besides me wonder what Young-Kee Kim considers "bizarre"?

Freedom? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Freedom

The New York Times recently reported that the House of Representatives debated a "non-binding" Republican resolution calling upon news media to cooperate with government officials and not publish secret information. See House Debates Measure Condemning Intelligence Leaks NY Times, June 29, 2006).

According to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press."

What part of that do they not understand? Could it be clearer?. The resolution is as contrary to the spirit of freedom and democracy as anything could be. It reminds us that some very powerful people believe that freedoms should only be permitted when they are not exercised.

Okay, so it's a "non-binding" resolution and it won't violate the First Amendment in practice. But in SPIRIT it is as anti-American as the bombing of the World Trade Center, perhaps more, because the intent is to undermine the very freedoms that al Qaeda attacked on 9/11.

What next? A constitutional amendment to eliminate freedom of the press?

This may be the scariest Congress in U.S. History.

I Can Quit Anytime I Want . . .

It seems that Rush Limbaugh's brush with Florida customs authorities may not result in any prison time. Rush who has admitted to "doctor shopping" to obtain pain killers, is currently serving 18 months probation. Under the terms of his probation, Rush may not be arrested during that period or he will face jail time.

Rush was detained for three hours at Palm Beach Int'l Airport when customs officials discovered he was carrying a bottle of Viagara for which he had no prescription.

The loophole that will save Rush is that Florida allows a physician to write a prescription for one person, but make it out in someone else's name.

According to an article published on CNN's web site Tuesday June 27 (Viagra threatens Limbaugh plea deal), prosecutors have hinted that Rush will not be subject to charges because "possession of Viagra is in a 'completely different universe than a matter that would involve Schedule Two (controlled) substances such as OxyContin'."

Meanwhile, the Drug Enforcement Administration, does not consider Viagra to be a controlled substance because "it's not something you can be addicted to," according to DEA Investigator Maria Gilbert.

Viagara? Non-addictive? Maybe they should check with a pudgy, 55 year old political pundit for a second opinion.

Flagging Interest

Flagging Interest
Category: News and Politics

I think the Congress has spent more time this session debating whether to pass the Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment, that is to protect a little decorated shred of cloth, than how to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of MILLIONS of PEOPLE in Darfur.

Really, this is outrageous, the Republican's ought to be called to account for this.

I hope to see a democratic advertising campaign this fall that goes something like this:

On screen: pictures and videos of killing and suffering around the world. Statistics scrolling across the screen and a narrator providing a voice-over along these lines:

Last year, X number of innocent women and children were dismembered, raped, and mutilated in Sudan. X number of people were killed and X number have been left homeless. Creating a humanitarian crisis of overwhelming proportions.

Last year Republican Congressman spent more time trying to protect a little bit of colored cloth, than he spent trying to stop Genocide.

It really could be adapted to any good issue. Maybe even Katrina relief.

Reasonable Minds Might Inquire

According to the New York Times, on June 21, 2006, AT&T, Inc. announced that:

it was revising its privacy policy, explaining to Internet and video customers that it owns their account records and can hand them over to law enforcers if necessary.

The changes take effect on Friday and come at a time when AT&T and other phone companies face lawsuits claiming they aided a U.S. government domestic spying program by giving the National Security Agency call records of millions of customers without their permission.

The new policy, unlike the old one, spells out the fact that AT&T owns its customers' data. It says that customer information constitutes ``business records that are owned by AT&T. As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.''

AT&T Revises Privacy Policy, Says Owns Customer Data June 22, 2006. In other words, AT&T is happy to deliver anyone's phone records whenever it decides that it serves its own interests to do so.

Here's my question:

Do the new rules include, or apply to, the records of former customers? How long do they maintain records of their former customers phone usage anyway? Is the NSA going to review my phone records from three or seven years ago or ten years ago?

Reading is Fundamental

Here's a piece of legislation worth calling your congressional representative about.

Pending in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 688 would amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House.

How many times have we heard that a significant piece of legislation, such as the so-called "Patriot Act" was adopted by a significant majority of voting representatives, even though the Act was hundreds of pages long, printed the evening before and handed out minutes before the vote? The Rule amendment proposed by Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wa), together with 34 co-sponsors would give everyone an opportunity to actually read the laws before they approve them.

Perhaps of greater import. The proposed amendment would give all Americans ready access, via the internet, to all proposed legislation 72 hours before it is voted on - and that gives each of us the opportunity to contact our representatives and make our points of view known before they vote.

Hopefully, this is something sensible that everyone, republican and democrat, conservative and liberal, can support.

Read more about it. You can find the text of the bill at the link in my second paragraph. Or you can find out whether your congressional rep. is a co-sponsor or help support passage of the bill at ReadtheBill.org.

Where Does He Get His Candy Bars?

You've seen this Milky Way Commercial haven't you?. Some 30something guy with reddish/brownish hair, neatly trimmed beard, stands at the front door. Good-looking woman with black-rimmed glasses says "Good night Neal" and closes the door in his face.

Dejected, poor Neal returns to his car, pulls a Milky Way candy bar from the glove compartment, tears away half the wrapper and out pops . . . a tiny little brunette woman, with a hot bod, a skimpy pink shirt (or is it a negligee?) and an abysmally phony french accent who asks Neal:

"Why so blue panda bear?"
Neal (testily): "Whatever"
Eye candy: "I have a secret for you. . .. You are a buffet of manliness."
Neal & Eye Candy together: laughs.

And then Neal bites her head off.

What message is this supposed to convey? I don't know whether to be amused, mystified or appalled. It certainly does not make me want a Milky Way bar.

But it does make me think Neal's date should thank her lucky stars (yes, it's a pun) that she didn't invite him in.

On a sadder note - RIP Gyorgy Ligeti

On a sad note, the world lost a true musical giant Monday, June 12. Hungarian Composer, Gyorgy Ligeti died at the age of 83.

You may not know his name, but you do know his music. Those disembodied voices singing like a hive of buzzing bees in the soundtrack for 2001: A Space Oddyssey are singing the Kyrie from Ligeti's setting of Lux Aeterna, his Requiem and other choral works.

A little bit of trivia: Stanley Kubrick had commissioned a score for the film 2001; however, when the score was finally delivered, Kubrick didn't like it. At the last minute, Kubrick selected works by Ligeti and Strauss in lieu of the commissioned work - to outstanding effect.

A master of atonalism, Ligeti stood astride the 20th Century as one of its greatest musical intellects. Yes, his compositions may be be difficult to appreciate, but they are well worth the effort.

Alas, I lack the necessary musical vocabulary to do him justice. But Stephen V. Funk has written a fine obit with many useful links.

Why? Why?

A television commercial being aired recently by Altel (to sell their latest slim-phone or some such thing) treats us to a few brief glimpses of video we can download and watch on their cell-phones for "entertainment."

One of these glimpses is some unfortunate individual vomiting over a sink.

That's not exactly what I call entertainment. I had to watch it three times to be certain I wasn't imagining it.

Why on Earth (or any other planet) would Altel think something that revolting would help sell its product?

The Great Moralizer

After five years in office, today George Bush vetoed a bill providing for federal funding of stem cell research. This is the first and only bill that Mr. Bush has vetoed. His veto comes despite overwhelming, bi-partisan popular support for the bill, overwhelming scientific evidence that existing stem cell lines are insufficient, and at the cost of delaying what may be some of the greatest medical breakthroughs of this, or any, century. . . not to mention all of the lives that will be lost or that will deteriorate as a result of George Bush's brazen efforts to turn America from a leader in medical science, and the sciences generally, into a backwater where undisputed scientific facts, such as evolution and global warming are merely inconvenient debates to be bullied out of existence.

George Bush lied to America to start an unnecessary war in Iraq He's caused the death of more Iraqis in the last three years than Sadaam in the previous ten. He ignored military advice, rigged intelligence. The average Iraqi now fears leaving his home. People are being killed for shaving their beards and women, who under Saddaam had a measure of equality, can not leave their homes at all unless they are covered from head to toe and accompanied by a family member.

George Bush has approved torturing prisoners, warrantless wiretaps, imprisoning people for months and, in some cases, years, without charges being brought, and without access to lawyers, family, friends, or courts. He has transported prisoners to secret prisons in countries known for their brutal treatment of detainees. He stifled Congressional investigations into the illegality of these programs. He tried to destroy social security. He has prevented the establishment of reasonable security measures at the country's chemical plants. He has done next to nothing to alleviate the incredible suffering in Darfur - even though he has acknowledged that the Sudanese government is waging a program of genocide

Yet he vetoed stem cell research because it crossed a "moral boundary."

George Bush has crossed virtually every moral boundary considered necessary for civilized peoples since Runnymede (yes, the Magna Charta - about 800 years ago). He may be the last man on earth with the right to judge moral boundaries.

Why is it the only moral boundaries George Bush won't cross are the ones that can actually do some good for people?

Bloody Brilliant

Here's a new biotech growth industry. I just saw an advertisement for a company that will harvest placental blood cells at the birth of your child, and cryo-preserve those cells for your child's future medical needs.

Lessons learned from stem cell research might permit future oncologists to use cultures grown from preserved placental cells instead of seeking a bone marrow donor. Further, as preserved placental cells will exactly match the cells to be replaced - the incidence of tissue rejection will likely diminish.

Is such treatment possible? Is it likely? Who knows. But the research shows much promise (if George Bush does not veto the legislation that will reach his desk this week or next).

If stem-cell research makes good on one tenth of its promise, the harvesting and preservation of placental blood will become the norm (for those who can afford it), there will be a growing need for larger, less expensive, more reliable storage/preservation centers.

It seems like a good risk now, to get in on the ground floor of the technology.

It seems like a good area for legislatures to consider the need of regulation. The operators of such centers need to be financially viable for extended periods of time. A person may not need to rely on the stored cells for 50, 60 or more years, and the operator may be called to recover a sample even as much as 100 years after it was collected.

The reliability over time issue is, to some extent, balanced against the likelihood that as years go by new medical advances will render the usefulness of these particular cells obsolete. However, the value of these cells may be of much greater importance 10 or 20 years from now when the parents of younger children might thank their stars they had the foresight to take advantage of the process.

So the industry will need regulators to ensure reliability, financial accountability, standards for licensing. Also back-up procedures to protect the facilities and cell samples in the event of natural disaster or the failure of the corporate operator (special provisions may be required under the Bankruptcy Code for example)

Oppose the Birth Tax - Vote for a Democrat

With many thanks to my father for this:

Who is, far and away, the biggest taxer in American (or, for that matter World) history?

George Bush (aided by his Republican supporters in Congress) has imposed higher taxes on the American People than any other President in U.S. History - More than all other's combined.

The "Birth Tax" is the taxes our children and grandchildren will pay to satisfy the TRILLION dollar deficit this President has created by his hopelessly incompetent economic policies and his spending like a drunken sailor.

Taxes are taxes are taxes. And whether we pay them now, or our children pay them later, they are still taxes. George Bush is responsible for the staggering deficit. He should be held accountable when the taxes are eventually imposed to pay for it.

Three Out of Ten is not That Bad . . .

A great big three cheers and a 21 gun salute go to Stephen Colbert for his absolutely fabulous interview with Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, republican, of Georgia's 8th Congressional District.

Rep. Westmoreland outdid himself in succombing to Colbert's knack for making his interviewees appear like idiots. Here is my favorite segment from the interview:

Colbert: "You co-sponsored a bill requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the House of Representatives and Senate. Why was this important to you?"

Westmoreland: "Well, the Ten Commandments is not a bad thing for people to understand and respect."

Colbert: "I'm with you."

Westmoreland: "Where better place could you have something like that than a judicial building or a courthouse."

Colbert: "That is a good question. Can you think of any better building to put the Ten Commandments in?"

Westmoreland "No." [editorial comment, how about a church or synagogue?]. "I think if we were totally without 'em we may lose our sense of direction."

Colbert: "What are the Ten Commandments?"

Westmoreland: "What are they? You want me to name them all?"

Colbert: "Yes."

Westmoreland: "hmmmmm . . . Don't murder, don't lie, don't steal. . . Uhhhh . . . I can't name them all."

Colbert: "Congressman, thank you for taking time away from keeping the Sabbath day holy and talking."

Westmoreland: "Any time."

How DOES Colbert do it? See the whole interview at The Colbert Report Media Player

The Slime Oozin' Out From My TV Set

I am dedicating this, my very first ever blog entry to Rep. Gil Gutknekht, republican from Minnesota's 1st Congressional district. As you might guess from the title of this entry, this dedication is meant derisivly and not as an honor.

As I write this members of the House of Representatives are debating H. Res. 821.

Resolution 821 is a do nothing resolution sponsored by House republicans. To paraphrase, the Resolution states "We support President Bush's policies and strategies in Iraq; We support America's troops in Iraq; We honor those fighting the Global War on Terrorism."

H. Res. 821 is a cheap, obvious and cynical political ploy. This fall, any member who votes "no" on H. Res 821 will be charged, in commercial after commercial, with failing to support the troops, soft on terrorism, and otherwise unpatriotic. Of course, the reality is that President Bush HAS NO STRATEGY in Iraq, no plan and no demonstrable understanding of the issues. It is obvious that the Republicans are counting on the simple fact that it is easier for them to tell lies and half-truths, than it is for Democrats to explain the truth.

What does this have to do with Rep. Gutknekht? During the course of today's debate, Rep. Gutknekht explained that we need to support President Bush's Iraqi policy because, among other things, Osama bin Laden and Zaquaria al Mussawi are responsible for the civil war and humanitarian crisis in Darfur and Somalia.

There is NO connection. NONE.AT ALL. I challenge anyone to produce a single documented piece of evidence that supports, even circumstantially, the claim that Osama bin Laden (or the late Mr. Mussawi) for the situation in Darfur.

Congressman Gutknekht has raised the level of slime to a new and unprecedented level. Of all the lies told by the Bush administration, and all of the lies told by Republican members of Congress in support of this aimless and pointless war in Iraq, Rep. Gutknekht's is easily the biggest.