Update

Update on that Libel Chill lawsuit I talked about before.  

Tacky

You aren't making yourself look very good, Brian. But then you always were terrible at public relations.

Al Gore 2000 in Vanity Fair

Here is an excellent long form article in Vanity Fair that you should check out. It focusses on the press coverage Al Gore received duing the 2000 election. It's good evidence of the self-flagellation that the United States is currently putting itself through over the Bush vs. Gore decision. Here's a few random thoughts to accompany the link:

• Man, I hated that election. I hated both of those guys so much. I thought Al Gore was a self important opportunistic exaggerator at the time as well. Mea Culpa. In addition, I had a history of being mad at Tipper Gore over her work with the Parents Music Resource Centre ("PMRC") to get labels on music albums.(I no longer have any such problem with it, frankly). At the same time, George Bush had received favorable magazine article coverage. They talked about his ability to reach bipartisan consensus with the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, as well as his proficiency with Spanish. Then I saw him speak for the first time and realised immediately his... intellectual deficiencies. So I went into 2000 not caring who won. I thought it would be a disaster either way. I've been officially proven half-right I think.
• 2004 happened. People like to forget about it. The United States didn't just elect Bush. They re-elected Bush. You might remember echoes in your head of the name "John Kerry". But John Kerry didn't win. You know that. What you might not realise is that Hillary Clinton is complicit in this re-election. She and Bill control a large swath of the organisation of the Democratic Party. Their plan to get Hillary into the White House required John Kerry to lose. I have no direct evidence that her organisation sat on their hands in 2004, but let's be serious, I don't need it. Go watch the tepid stump speech Bill Clinton reluctantly and eventuallty gave for John Kerry. Then send her a "thank you for the four more years" card with some excrement in it or something. (I do need to point out that incumbent presidents do win re-election almost all the time. So don't give her all the blame. But give her a good healthy dollop.)
• September 11th changed everything. The 2008 election will be the first real evidence of this. People have a bad....and by bad I mean VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY STUPID STUPID STUPID BAD BAD STUPID BAD BAD.... habit of looking at world events ahistorically. For example, they tend to forget there was ever a cold war when wondering why the US armed and trained Osama Bin Laden. They tend to forget (or not know) that the 1990s Iraq War never actually ended when discussing the foolishness of going "back in" in the 2000s. Likewise, one MUST view the 2000 election as happening at the very end of what I (and not only I) refer to as our recent "summer vacation" between the cold war and the war on terror. For a while the US really thought it had the leisurely latitude to vote for its president based on criteria that would normally be appropriate only for the election of a high school president. This year the opposite is occurring with Barack Obama being pinned to the wall at every opportunity for not having a resume that's as tall as he is.
• Speaking of high school presidents, watch the movie Election starring Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick. It predates the 2000 election, but is an absolutely eery analogue for it. The Gore anologue is the bad guy. Boy, times sure do change.

Anyway, as I said, just some random thoughts. Go read the article. It's a good one.

p.s. Sighing heavily is a perfectly reasonable response to listening to George Bush talk about issues. It's someone not sighing that should concern you.

The MPAA are not the bad guys. WE are the bad guys.

This "Digg" news story is just one example of the ongoing war between the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry of America, and their customers/thieves.

What bothers me about this fight isn't so much that people are stealing movies and music. Full disclosure: I've done it. I remember way back as a kid pressing record on the tape deck so that I could tape songs off the radio. Bad sound. But good times.

No. What bothers me is the idea that some people, like the people in that DIGG thread, are starting to think that aren't doing anything wrong if they download. This is nonsense. It is theft. Look, we all do bad things. Everyone. If I was the pope, I'd forgive you. But the record and movie companies have every moral right to try to sell the product that they spend money creating. They are being very forward thinking in doing so, by the way. Convergence is upon us. It is already possible to download a first run movie while it is still in theatres and watch it on your holy-shit sized television. It just isn't perfectly easy. But better quality and ease of use is coming in all areas of that chain.

This isn't like open source software either. I mean it could be. If you and your Internet friends want to get together and create open source free movies to compete with the Hollywood studios, go right ahead. Same with music. Just don't make me watch or listen to them.

Pirate Bay - the new big thing in thievin' - sees itself as the anti-hero. It sees itself as the heir to pirate radio. But there are two things wrong with that. First, pirate radio wasn't justified either. It's perfectly acceptable for the government to regulate the amount of limited FM bandwidth there is. But secondly, even if you disagree with the first point, this isn't someone ranting and saying expletives on the airwaves. This is people choosing that someone else's hard work should be enjoyed for free against the wishes of the person or people who did the hard work. Charming.

You'll notice that I'm not getting into statistics like the ones that say that more digital media is bought by the downloaders and that business has never been better. It's because I don't care. That information is in the hands of the relevant service providers. It is theirs to do with, tactically, as they wish. My guess is that they don't think that's a situation that will continue indefinitely. But again, deciding what to do with that information is their prerogative. They are the creators.

I also know that the existence of this phenomenon is spurring changes and innovations in the industry. Great. But smallpox spurred innovations in medicine. It doesn't mean I need to send it a thank you card.

In any event, I know we'll still steal some. We often can't afford all the music we would like. The ability to do it is there. And it is hardly the worst of all crimes. The market is not going to stop being the market - free stuff will beat out low or high price.
But if you are doing it don't be smug about it. You're no hero.

Guilty means Guilty! ... Really?

John Ibbitson writes in Wednesday's Globe and Mail with respect to Larry Craig: (and don't bother with the link, it's behind their silly subscription wall)

 

"Sorry Senator: Once you plead guilty to an offense, you admit to the truth of the allegation. We can argue over whether the sting operation was harassment, but Larry Craig can't claim innocence. He's guilty as sin, as he admitted in open court."

 

Notice how de jure became de facto there?  I guess Ibbitson would be just as quick to swear to the high heavens that OJ was actually not guilty. After all, an open court found him not guilty AND he plead not guilty.

 

The fact is that MILLIONS of people in front of MANY courts have pled guilty for a MULTITUDE of offenses that they didn't actually believe they were guilty of. When I briefly worked as a lawyer, I watched people in the Brampton courthouse plead guilty to spousal abuse just to get back in their house and others who would plead guilty to sexual assault rather than go to trial to argue "honest but mistaken belief". Oh sure, they would say the right things to their lawyer and their judge but the fact is that for money or reputational reasons people plead guilty without FEELING guilty all the time.  I know they have to tell the judge they really did it and they're really sorry. But when someone wants to make a problem go away, one often does so.   

 

That doesn't mean that Larry Craig is innocent. He probably isn't. But saying that someone is actually guilty because they pled guilty is either deliberately disingenuous or highly naive.

Random Notes That Will Make Me Sound Like a Lifelong Leftie

• Hey. Quebec police. You are idiots at best and dangerous at worst. Seriously. What were you thinking? I understand putting undercover officers in place, but did they need to a) look like cops and b) dress like black flaggers.
• Hey Ontarions: I don't like panhandlers either, but don't go using one murder as justification for anything. If you want to ban the class of people who commit the most murders, they are called "husbands".
• Hey Barack Obama and Ron Paul supporters: Sending each other emails on the internet is not gonna cut it. You'll have to leave your mom's basement and knock on some doors.

Funny Cartoon

http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/politics101.gif