Exactly how I feel, Randall - over at xkcd.

Now, normally I’m against most of what this administration has done.  They’ve been unnecessarily sneaky with a lot of things that have caused an erosion of the trust of our citizens in the Government.  For example, they’ve been sliding the reason for attacking Iraq around until they find one that’s palatable and sticks.  If they just would have been honest from the beginning - that they just wanted Saddam out of the way - perhaps they could have just drummed up enough support for that.  And, if they couldn’t, well we’re a democracy (or like to pretend we are) so they shouldn’t be able to do it.

However, I think the telcos need immunity and here’s why.  Let’s say I’m the CEO of a telecommunications company that rhymes with Horizon and some guys from the US Justice Department show up in my office.  They say, “We need you to wiretap phone calls in the USA to stop terrorists.  We could have stopped 11 Sept if we only had been able to do this.”

I say, “One Moment Please.”  And I check with my lawyers.  Then I respond with, “They say you need a FISA warrant and for us to cooperate with you would be illegal.”

Then the Justice Department guys say, “Look, this is legal.  We have this letter here that says it’s legal.  Anyway, we’re the government and we promise not to arrest you over this.  If something happens, we’ve got your back.  After all, it’s legal - see”

Now what can I say?  If the US Government itself has told me that this program is legal, who am I to argue?  After all, who is in charge of police and arresting people?  The US Government.  So they tell me this is legal, then it’s legal.  So it’s unfair if I cooperate with them, thinking they’ve cleared it with whomever (like Congress), for my company to get sued.  How was I to know they didn’t do things correctly?  It was underground spy stuff, I can’t exactly call around and check to make sure that it really is illegal.

So I think the telcos are just victims in the Government’s deception.  They shouldn’t be punished for that.  Otherwise, what’s going to happen the next time those Justice Department guys show up asking for [legitimate] favors?  I’ll just want to CMA and I’ll say, “No thanks.  Why don’t you go ask that telephone company with the Death Star Logo.”

This year has been an incredibly racist year from people being afraid to vote for Barack Obama because they believe he’s a secret Muslim (so? Any American-born person should be allowed to run for president) to people who say he’s too black or not black enough. Now this old guy claims that Obama’s an Oreo and it’s unfair for him to reap the rewards of the Civil Rights battles of the previous generations.

I think this is outrageous. It’s bad enough that children in lower income areas accuse their classmates who are doing well of “acting white”, but now to hear this guy saying the same thing is just beyond words. We need to be proud of the fact that Obama might be the first mulatto president and not criticize him for acting white. After all, would anyone vote for a ghetto president? I think not….

Obama will not be the first African-American President of the United States. Barack Obama will be the first mulatto President of the United States of America. This is the myth of race in the USA. Apparently because Barack is half-black, he’s the first African-American President. But if he’s half-black then he’s also half-white. So why isn’t he just the 40-somethingith white President of the US? I don’t understand, if one half is valid, why isn’t the other?

In a way, however, I think the fact that Obama will be the first mulatto President of the USA is a more significant event. There was actually a time in the USA when people of two races could not legally marry. Even after that legal restriction was lifted, many people faced hurdles in life for being biracial. However, with more and more people mixing it up, as it were, I think Obama’s candidate signals a turning point in our country’s history. It’s not historic for him being a black President (because he isn’t) it’s historic because he symbolizes the true and logical conclusion of a melting pot society.

Up until now, the US has been more like a salad bowl than a melting pot. People came from all over the world to the US and then settled in racial enclaves - Chinatown, Little Havana, Little Italy, etc So they were Americans, but had separate experiences from other Americans. But now more and more people are choosing partners based on all of their qualities other than race. And we find ourselves in a true melting pot where children will learn about one set of grandparents from an ancient empire and another set of parents from the newer nations of Europe or South America.

So I view Obama’s (probable) election as marking the point where race ceased to be relevant. When we’re all every race, then there isn’t race anymore. Sure, all the old people who run the news networks can’t see it yet. They’re seeing everything through their generation’s eyes. Obama’s got some black blood in him, so he must be a black candidate. But historians will look back and say, this is the point where America truly became a melting pot and truly began to be wholly different from all the other homogeneous nations in the old world.

This makes me happy because racism is really the only type of -cism that can be enacted on just by looking at someone. Classism is hard in the US because our clothes aren’t so different between the classes as they were in the Victorian Age. When I see a female in jeans, I have no idea if they are designer jeans or $20 Walmart jeans. Additionally, some people with money choose to purposely dress innocuously to avoid attention from criminals. Agism, to whatever extent it exists, can be cheated by plastic surgery. Sexism is hard to do on a large scale (at least given where we are now as a society) because we’re roughly 50/50 so I think men (or women) will have a hard time convincing women (or men) to go back to 2nd class status. But with racism, it’s the worst right now. Look at the World War Two time period. It was easy to round up the Asians and send them to internment camps because you just had to look for “asian eyes” and other such features. But when everyone is mixed together you won’t be able to say, “watch out, there goes a black guy” or see an Asian and make fun of their language.

And that’s why I’m excited about Obama’s potential win.

Yes, the race for the White House has hit new lows, even for this race.  It appears that we haven’t learned from the past two races and it’s starting to scare me.  Both in 2000 and 2004 one of the biggest reasons stated for George W Bush winning was that both Al Gore and John Kerry seemed too “elite” and “aloof”.  George Bush seemed a little more down to earth, someone you could invite to a BBQ.  Well look where that got us!!

The whole idea of a presidential candidate being too elite is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER heard.  It defies logic.  We Americans like to think of our country as the best country in the whole world.  So shouldn’t we have the best, smartest man (or woman) in the job?  I don’t want just anyone to be president!  It’s a special and unique post.  We need the best and the brightest guiding our foreign policy, setting the agenda for the country, and controlling the executive functions.

This is not a wholly new complaint of mine, but what set me off was this article.  In this article Clinton says:

Clinton … while dismissing economists who have said her plan to suspend gas taxes over the summer would do little good.

“I’m not going to put my lot in with economists,” Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.

“We’ve got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans,” said Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president.

So she’s saying that she, who has no training in economics is a better person to decide what’s best for the country than someone who’s studied economics.  She doesn’t want to listen to their opinion because it’s too elite.  What kind of absurdity is that?  Look, econ is hard and I’ll be the first to admit that it’s SO HARD that even the economists barely know what they’re doing.  But I’d still trust them over someone with no training any day.

Let’s wrap this up with a great mind exercise.  When you are sick are you going to not go to a doctor because that’s too elitist?  Surely you should just ask a random coworker what you should do.  And why hire construction workers to build new buildings, that sounds pretty elitist to me!  Are you saying that he’s better qualified to determine how to build a building than the average joe?  And when my car breaks down, why take it to a mechanic when I could just pick some random person off the street and have them replace the engine block.  Do you now see how silly all this elitist talk is?

I just hope that this doesn’t become a huge trend because I see America going down the toilet if we keep this up.  It may just be the case that my children will have to be immigrants in some other country - one that hasn’t elected some yokel to office just because he looks like someone you can have a beer with.

Ever since the story broke that the USG wanted us to spend our money on material goods, there have been many people appearing on the news saying that their real problem was that they had too much debt and they were going to use their rebate check to pay down their debt.  Unfortunately, if everyone did that responsible thing, it would make the rebate checks pointless as a way to help the economy.  Therefore Uncle Sam decided to help you out.

Our wonderful government has put people’s social security numbers into a computer program to figure out who is most likely to use this money to pay down debt.  Do you owe a lot on your house or credit cards?  Are you a student?  If so, you may be a bit surprised when you file your taxes this year.  According to a story that aired on National Public Radio (NPR), via American Public Media’s Marketplace, if you’re likely to use your money to pay down debt, the government will buy something for you and send it to you.  To a family in Arizona they sent an air conditioner.  Never mind that they may already have one or may not want to use one.  That’s what the good ole government has determined you should get.  People in the north may find themselves getting snow blowers.

I find the whole thing disgusting.  What do they know about what I want or need?  If they truly want to make sure that we can’t use the money to pay down debts, they could just send us Visa Gift cards.  That way we’d have to use it to buy things, but we’d be able to buy whatever we pleased.  If I wanted to buy computer parts or a DVD, I’d be able to do so, rather than be stuck with what some computer in DC says I need.

Sometimes this administration just pisses me off.

Now, I have no idea about whether Barack is awesome at basketball; perhaps he is.  However, if I had been working on this piece for MSNBC I would have erred on the side of not appearing racist.  But then again, this entire political season has been one excuse after another to talk about all kinds of borderline racist stuff.  I remember when Barack was dancing on The Ellen Show and CNN had reporter Moost asking people if he was dancing as well as a black guy should.  What kind of a question is that?

Of course, I’m not the only one who’s asking this question - on 14 February’s The Daily Show, Stewart had a segment called “Iraq?” where he asked, “Is this still going on?”  He went on to mention that Iraq is still f-ing around in Iraq and that the Parliament had approved a new flag.

So what has caused everyone to suddenly stop talking about the war and what has caused the protesters to stop protesting?  It would have been Richard Nixon’s dream come true with the Vietnam War.  I wonder if it’s because things are finally doing well enough that people think it’s going to come to an end anyway, so there’s point in protesting.  Or is it because, with a presidential race, perhaps the right president will win and get us out of there? 

The information about the war and the protests against it ended so suddenly, I just wonder what happened.  And I always find myself wondering….did the war end?

Blogged with Flock

Tags: Iraq, Iraq War, The Daily Show, Cindy Sheehan, war protest

When I would ask the women what was wrong with having a woman president, they would think for a bit and answer something like, “I just can’t see a woman as president,” or “I wouldn’t trust a woman president.”  It was rather a strange thing to hear.

Now, strangely, we find ourselves in the position that either one of those two will be selected as the Democratic nominee.  Right now they’re roughly neck and neck.  So I wonder if perhaps something about the people I always chose to hang around with biased them against liking a woman president or if it’s different just because now it’s real and not just a lunch-time hypothetical. 

I think the final result tells us a lot about what’s stronger in our country - racism or sexism.  After all, I’ve actually heard people call into NPR shows saying they won’t vote for Obama simply because he’s black.  That’s the kind of stuff I thought we were way over from in this country.  But no, we find ourselves still dealing with this as a nation.  On other shows I’ve heard people express all kinds of feelings about having a woman president which we’re supposed to also be over as a country.

Then it’s off the the national elections, but there I see it as much less about the race or gender of the person than the party the voters prefer.  I doubt more than a vocal minority will vote for the other party (or not vote, which is equivalent to voting for the other party) just because the Democrat is black or a woman.  Most people who will vote for McCain will be doing it because they like Republicans, not as a rejection of a race or sex they don’t like.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: Obama, Hillary, President, Presidential Campaign, 2008, sexim, racism

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.

If you don’t believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “prohibited copying” or “unauthorized copying” are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.” - rms on Piracy in Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding

Photo by redjar on flickr, used under a Creative Commons License

Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and “theft” to describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.

So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system—at least in the US—rejects the idea that copyright infringement is “theft.” Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority … and misrepresenting what authority says.

The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down. - rms on Theft in Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding

Recently I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about copy protection and unauthorized downloading of video content. I saw unauthorized instead of illegal because I believe that, using common sense principals, it is easy to see that this should not be an illegal process in some circumstances. My arguments in this post hinge on ethical and logical assessments of the situation, not legal arguments in any way shape or form. IANAL (I am not a lawyer) so don’t use the opinions of this post to legally justify your actions. I do encourage you, however, to use them to try and persuade our leaders that the rules need to change.

Quickly, to comment on why I chose the above quotes by rms. I think, as he does, (and all politicians) that the words we use to describe things end up framing the debate. When downloading of videos is called “stealing” it’s easy to get behind Hollywood’s side. After all, who is for stealing? No one. I say that stealing requires the taking of some object and denying its use to others. This is a good definition, right? If I steal your bike, you can no longer use your bike for riding. If I steal your car, you cannot get around any more. If I steal your money, you may be unable to buy the things you need to sustain yourself. However, if I download video content, who is being denied the ability to watch it? In fact, with digital media, copying is the opposite of stealing. As objects are copied, they are seen by more and more people.

So, when should you be ethically in the clear when it comes to sharing video content? I feel that anything being shown on network Tv should be legal for me to download; it’s certainly ethical to do so. Why? Because any show I can watch on network Tv is available 100% free. If I have a Tv and an antenna I can get those channels. If I don’t have to pay for them in the first place, then how can it be stealing if I download it? That would be like saying that if I used a free public wireless access point with a PDA instead of a computer that I’m stealing the network. I find it impossible and an utter failure of logic to say that anything that’s FREE can be stolen. There should be no limitations on the way I obtain free things.

Now you might bring up one of the favorite arguments of the copyright owners, “Network television isn’t free! It’s paid for by commercials! And the Tv programs you download do not have commercials.” That would be a fine argument, if there were any way to actually force me to watch commercials. It could be an infringement upon my rights as an American to force me to watch commercials. Who says I can’t use commercial time to use the restroom or flip channels? Do they expect us to watch the commercials and then go to the bathroom during the content we are actually tuning in to watch? I have to admit that I rarely ever watch commercials, thanks to my wife. She hates commercials so much that she gets antsy if I don’t let her flip through the channels. It’s the same with newspapers, magazines and anything else subsidized by advertisements - I don’t look at them. (And no one can make me!) And if I could be forced to view them, no one can force me to pay attention. Because, if they can do that, then I’m getting the hell out of this country.

One more thing on the issue of commercials. I can always get a VHS tape or computer and do what I used to do as a kid - hit pause during commercials and start recording after the commercials. I never recorded commercials as a kid. And, since I can record Tv without commercials, what does it matter if someone else has done the recording for me?

So, while the companies might have a legal case against me in court, if we look at this like intelligent, rational engineers, we see that there should be no case against me when it comes to downloading network television. They were never making any money off