Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

From the interesting Correlation department: According to MAPLight.org, members of congress that voted for the bailout receive about 50% more in campaign contributions from bank lobbies, than those who voted no. Of course, that is not something that these congressmen and women would EVER take into account with voting, right?

Read More...

Summary only...

I’ve been listening to a podcast of a show called Free Talk Live. One of the hosts, Ian, has a tendency to be a complete jerk to anyone he disagrees with. His position is that if you’re not a borderline anarchist, then you support government sanctioned violence, and therefore you don’t deserve his respect. In his activism with the Free State Project, he has recently been interacting with judges in a variety of small cases that are arising in the protest movement that has developed there, and even in cases where the judges have made concessions, which are small victories for the movement, he continues to be derisive.



I can surely understand his point of view. When you have a strongly held position such as his that “anyone who supports big government is directly trying to take my freedom”, it is easy to develop negative feelings against them. After all, the logical conclusion is that these people also want to harm you. But in this case I don’t think most people approach it with that mindset. When the average person says “I think the government should help ______” they don’t think of the logical consequences of how that’s funded with taxes, and how those taxes can be considered theft, etc. They just have this image of the government as a “catch-all” organization to help everyone in need. These aren’t fascists, they’re just misinformed.
This attitude of “if you don’t agree with me, screw you”, is terribly unproductive for convincing people to your viewpoint. It reminds me of the problem that plagued Ayn Rand. She was a brilliant woman, a deft author, but was completely unpleasant to anyone she disagreed with. Her works have been demonized by people who knew nothing more of her than how she treated people.
Like the old adage says, you catch more flies with honey. In the political realm most people’s opinions and preferences are much like children who don’t know any better. If you’re trying to teach a child math, you don’t yell at him for not knowing differential equations after he finally understands division. You congratulate him and encourage him, and keep trying to teach him more. If anyone wants to see our country return to a more liberty oriented society, we need to encourage and thank the bureaucrats that make baby steps towards liberty, and not insult them for not doing enough.

Read More...

Summary only...

Six years ago President Bush appeared before a banner on a warship that said Mission Accomplished. To every observer, he appeared to be claiming that the Iraq War was over and had been a success. Today, we're still in that war. Yesterday, John McCain took credit for the successful passing of the bailout of the banks. A few hours later, the bailout plan failed. McCain is such a maverick, he's willing to spit in the face of conventional wisdom. "I've never touted the party line against counting chickens before they hatch".

More on this at Politico

Read More...

Summary only...

When I heard that McCain had chosen Palin as his running mate, my first thought was Michael Palin of Monty Python fame. But much like the Python's Spanish Inquisition, no one really expected the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin from Alaska. Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condaleeza Rice, Gen. Colin Powell, Gov. Bobby Jindal; these are names that I expected to hear in terms of the nomination. All of them (perhaps with the exception of Romney) would've been sufficiently outside of the "WASP" category to allow McCain, the quintessential old white guy in politics, to compete with the historical nomination of Obama. And all of them would accomplish the goal of diversity without having people wonder "Who is this person?".

So who is Gov. Sarah Palin?


Wikipedia tells us she's 44, current Governor of Alaska, previously chairperson of the Orwellian-named Alaska Oil and Gas conservation commission. The bulk of her political experience comes from Wasilla, AK, a town of around 8000 people where she was Mayor from 1996-2002.

Although she hasn't been Governor for long, she's made a big splash. She exposed Alaska Republican Party Chairman for some shady dealings he made while working at the Oil and Gas commission, she defeated the incumbent Governor Murkowski in the Republican primary, won the general election, and then auctioned off the jet that Murkowski bought on Ebay. From these instances we can see a picture of someone who's not afraid to stand up for what she believes in, who wants to get rid of the excesses of government, and who has accomplished great things in her limited time in politics.

Palin will be a great pick to energize all of those people that were going to begrudgingly vote for him because he was a Republican, but really didn't like him because he wasn't conservative enough. It also might help to distance McCain from the Bush presidency by showing someone who is a conservative, but isn't one of the good ol' boys, reinforcing McCain's image as a maverick. But for those of us who really don't have a clear decision made of whom to vote for, the swing voters, and even the Hillary supporters thinking about voting Republican, the pick makes absolutely no sense.

McCain is the oldest man to ever get the nomination for president, he's also a cancer survivor, a torture survivor, and, if elected, will have the most stressful job in the world. If the average life expectancy in the us is 75 years old, there's a good chance he wont make it through his first term, let alone 8 years. What that'll leave us with is a former Ms. Alaska runner up, who's bulk of experience comes from running a town that is smaller than the University of Idaho she got her B.A. in Communications. She'll also have 2 years of experience running Alaska, a state that is less populated than my hometown of El Paso, Tx. What about her foreign policy experience? According to her spokesman, she's traveled outside the country twice, once to Ireland, and once to Germany and Kuwait to visit the Alaska National Guard troops. If and when McCain kicks the bucket, is this who we want leading the country?

And what about other things in her life? Does a mother of 5 young children, one of whom is 4 months old and has down syndrome, really have the time to be Vice President, and maybe president?

Gov. Palin is surely an accomplished woman, and probably incredibly hardworking, and intelligent. Perhaps she would and will make an excellent VP and, if needed, commander in chief. But it's hard not to wonder if McCain didn't go out of his mind with the choice. At the very least, he's going to be eaten alive in the media for it, and at the very worst, in a moment of national tragedy, he could leave the country with someone completely unprepared to fill his shoes in the Oval office.

Read More...

Summary only...

Welcome back folks. I'm back, big as life and twice as ugly posting from my new temporary headquarters in Wylie, TX. The move from Chicago went smoothly, with the only casualty being the transmission of my car. Perhaps it is an omen: the 'reverse' function is broken, as now my little 4-cylinder can only move forward. Hopefully in a few short weeks I'll be moving forward to my new life in Austin, Texas.

If you know anyone in that area, let me know. I'm jumping into the water head first, and I don't know very many people there, so it'd be great to start getting connected.

Cheers from the Lone Star State,
Ricky.

Read More...

Summary only...

The stars were aligned today to make my return to the blogosphere as easy as possible. As I sat down to make my normal rounds of news sites I see this headline over at Politico:Ted Stevens indicted. Sen Stevens has been a US Senator since 1968 and is the longest standing Republican Senator in the country. He is allegedly also the the most corrupt Senator in Washington. Today he was indicted on 7 counts of false reporting on his Senate income disclosure forms. Apparently VECO, an oil services firm, did about $250,000 worth of renovations to his home which he forgot to mention...7 years in a row. Whoops!

Of course, no one believes that receiving that much money could possibly influence a senator, right? Well, the government isn't alleging bribery, and during the official press conference announcement, they made clear that there was no quid-pro-quo agreement between the Senator and VECO but that “received solicitations for official actions from Allen and other VECO employees, and that Sen. Stevens used his position and office on behalf of VECO during that same time period”.

Unlike Rep. Randall Cunningham who had a bribe menu, Sen. Stevens is probably too intelligent to put his corruption down on paper. The Senator's defense is going to argue that there's no proof that it affected the Senator's judgment. It's going to argue that the Senator didn't know that he had to report these gifts, and that he shouldn't have to. They're going to claim that, there's really nothing wrong with a Senator take hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from companies whose future he can strongly influence.

Whether the corruption by Sen. Stevens is proven to be real or just a technicality, the publics faith in congress, and particularly in the Republicans, is going to take a hit. "If a men believe the situation to be real, it is real in its consequences". The National Review is calling for Sen. Stevens' resignation. Congressmen are distancing themselves from him. It has also thrown the McCain campaign and talking heads off message, as they have to answer questions about Sen. Stevens instead of what they wanted to talk about.

Ted Stevens has spent his career in the Senate getting ridiculous amounts of Pork for his state. The "Bridge to Nowhere" was supposed to connect an island of 50 people to the mainland for $320 million, or $6.2 Million dollars per person. While plans for the bridge were eventually canceled, it shows the disrespect that the Alaska Senator has for the American people. Even if Sen. Stevens is found guilty of the charges, it is unlikely that he will face any jail time because of his age. Still, it is encouraging to see that there has recently been such aggressive prosecution of corruption in Washington and that even the career Senator from Alaska is not immune to the law.

Read More...

Summary only...

He kicked in doors and made arrests. He helped the people in Gerald, Missouri end their problems with Meth. Sometimes he was a Federal Marshall, others, a member of the DEA, but it was not always clear which. When asked to show a warrant he informed people he was a federal agent, and didn't need one. Sergeant Bill was no federal agent. He was an unemployed former rent-a-cop who went on a spree of arrests with the approval of the Gerald Police Department. When he first arrived, the Police Department confirmed his credentials with the "Multijusrisdictional Task Force", a non-existent entity whose name comes from Beverly Hills Cop II. While the Gasconade County Republican ousted him on May 14th, he has yet to be charged with a crime.


I shouldn't be surprised that he hasn't been charged. What he did is no worse than what actual enforcement agencies do. No-knock warrants combined with mistaken addresses can end up with SWAT members shooting little old ladies. What's absolutely disgusting is that some tout him as a hero:

I’m not saying it was legal or lawful. But look, they were very effective while he was present. I don’t think Gerald is having the drug problem they were having. I’ve heard from some residents who were thrilled that he was there.

his lawyer said in a Fox News Channel interview.

I say this on no uncertain terms: this man, and anyone who knowingly assisted him, needs to be thrown in prison for a long, long time. That his lawyer has the chutzpah to suggest that the ends justified the means is an indication of just how far the erosion of civil rights and the rule of law has gone. The people in Gerald complied without a warrant likely figuring that just as so many rights lost in the "post-9/11 world" the necessity of a warrant was considered too big a burden for federal law enforcement.

Linda Trest, the reporter that broke the story, was able to uncover his lie in an hour of research. On NPR's Talk of the Nation, Ms. Trest claims that dogs in Gerald go through a more rigorous scrutiny with their vaccinations than "Sergeant Bill's" credentials got. Cursory investigations found evidence that some victims were robbed, and many assaulted with a sawed-off shotgun. 17 of his victims are suing him and the city. According to Fox News one victim was an "an elderly woman who was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward because she didn't cooperate with the police"

The ends do not justify the means. The protections the constitution guarantees are in place to lessen abuses of power by those whom we elect to govern us. It is never acceptable that a man with or without official authority go around terrorizing citizens with no burden of proof and no accountability to anything except his whims. Over a month has passed since his actions were discovered and reported, yet he remains a free man, making a circuit of talk shows and news programs. No crime has been charged, no bail has been necessary. The biggest criminal in Gerald has yet to pay any consequences, as he gets protection under the law, something his victims never got.

Read More...

Summary only...

NPR is holding a pledge drive right now, trying to raise funds for its operation. As it is mostly a listener supported station (they do receive a bit of government funding), they make pleas to reason and emotion to motivate their listeners to pledge. I enjoy NPR and I hope to one day be in a position to be able to donate. When they returned to their regular programming there was a spokesperson for Causes for Change International on Worldview. The organization works doing a variety of different community service projects in poor areas of Ecuador. As you would expect, Causes for Change was also making a plea for support. While the elements were similar to those on the NPR pledge drive, there was one definite difference: little white lies.


Chicago Public Radio tells you of the content it brings you; tells you their operating costs; points out the benefits of not only keeping them on the air, but of being a member ('Thank You' gifts and such). They plead their case openly and honestly, and know that the service they offer is worth while. When the people from Causes for Change plead they offer nothing in return but memories and satisfaction of helping others. While helping others may be a worthy cause, the problem comes from the form it is presented.

Among the various anecdotes she gave was a story describing the economic conditions of single mothers in Honduras. She related how many of them worked "80 hour weeks" to feed "sometimes six or more people". While this in itself isn't far fetched, she also said that many of these women survive on "no more than one tortilla a day for themselves". While I have not been there myself to confirm the story personally, there is an obvious problem with this claim. Looking at it simply mathematically: suppose that one of these "many women" being referred to was able to worth 80 hour weeks on 2000 many calories a day. According to this calorie counter, even the most calorie heavy tortilla only has about 170 calories. That leaves our hard working head of the family short 1830 calories a day, and at that rate, she will starve to death in about a month.

Obviously, the account was an exaggeration; a little white lie. But without the use of reason, the exaggeration would've remained uncovered. "How terrible", we're expected to say "that these women are starving when I have so much to eat". Yet I can't help but be insulted. The assumption behind the little white lie is that if you or I heard the truth, we'd be too selfish (or too stupid) to help. The complaint about Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" wasn't that his claims were untrue, but that by telling people the truth, they would cease their efforts to lead a more eco-friendly lifestyle.

Most of us recognize these as little white lies for what they are, yet we let them slide because "the ends justify the means". It's ok that they lied because it will help people. When the bum on the streets approaches us to tell his little white lie, most of us dismiss it and ignore him. When the beggars wear a suit, we praise them for their altruism.

Read More...

Summary only...

In the comments to "Shootin' Mad", Isaac asks:

Isn't the amendment not only intended to afford us the right to protect ourselves from one another, but also the right to protect ourselves from the tyranny of our own government?

While usually I would reply in the comments, this is a long enough response to merit it's own post. The problem is that the government cannot perform it's legitimate duties (prevention/rectification of force, fraud, and the threat thereof) if every citizen/group of citizens has enough firepower to protect themselves from the tyranny of government.


Every minor infraction requiring state intervention, including legitimate ones, would have a high risk factor for the enforcing body. To be effective, the government would have to increase the power behind it's force. As the firepower of the government increases to be able to fight crime, the firepower of the people to "prevent tyranny" would have to concurrently increase. Essentially the government would be unable to do it's job as long as civilians always had enough firepower to match it.

This is the fundamental idea that Hobbes tackles in Leviathan. In order for government to perform it's duties, it needs to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. However, once you give that right up to the government, it will inevitably and consistently increase it's scope and power as no non-government entity would have the ability to prevent it from doing so.

The founders were aware of this, and in order to help prevent against "the Leviathan" they instituted checks and balances. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the voice of the Constitution, and therefore the people, and stop the more egregious abuses by the Federal Government. However the Court itself has no real power to enforce its decisions. Without a police force or army at its command, all of its rulings are merely suggestions at the mercy of the Executive branch's will to enforce them.

Lets say elect a President who, due to some terrible tragedy, declares a state of martial law. A group of citizens sues, and the Supreme Court determines the martial law is unconstitutional and should be ended immediately. If the Executive were to ignore the order, the Judicial branch would be unable to enforce it. The US Marshals, the enforcement branch of the Judicial System, would be inadequate to prevent the military takeover by the Executive branch, a responsibility which would fall on the citizens.

While this is far fetched and theoretical, it serves to illustrate the catch-22 of the Second Amendment. If civilians have the firepower to defend themselves from the tyranny of government, the government has to engage in an arms race with it's own citizens to complete its legitimate task of protecting them. If civilians are restricted in the ownership of weapons, the government has an easier chore in enforcement, but there is no real way to prevent egregious abuses of power. I don't know what the answer or solution to this is. While I hope the day never comes when I have to figure it out.

Read More...

Summary only...

According to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, evidence that "the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian, uses of weapons" is "nowhere to be found". Apparently the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with with limiting the regulation of weapons. This was in his dissent to the controversial decision this week from the Supreme Court that the constitution does not allow "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." This is the first time in 70 years that the Supreme Court has looked at the gun rights issue, and it's starting quite the debate.

Mayor Daley's reaction was less than calm and collected:

"If they [the Supreme Court] think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking."

It seems the Mayor thinks that the decision was to force everyone to wield guns all the time. Hopefully, a few quotes from the actual decision will clear that up:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

It seems that his most vocal concern is unfounded. Seems unlikely that this ruling will bring on more 18th century style pistol duels.

Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

SCOTUS, DC v. Heller

So what has changed here, and how will it affect the City of Chicago? Well, the only thing that is certain, is that citizens of the District of Columbia, will now be allowed to get Gun Licenses to legally purchase and keep a gun for use in their home for self defense. If it is ruled that it does indeed apply to the City of Chicago, the gun ban that has been in place for over 25 years will have to be withdrawn.

The concern with this is that Chicago is a City already riddled with gun violence and that anything but full-on prohibition of guns, will only exacerbate the problem. But Chicago's gun woes have persisted despite the gun ban. From 2004 to the end of 2007 there were 43,685 gun related crimes in Chicago. For a city in which guns are supposed to be illegal, 10,000 gun crimes a year seems awfully high.

There are some people who believe that the right to bear arms should extend to all forms of weapons; I am not one of them. I don't believe we need a society with citizens who are all armed with military grade machine guns. I do believe that the right to defend your home, your life, and your property is essential for every individual on the planet. When a handgun is no longer enough to achieve this security I may reconsider my position. For the time being, I like the fact that the Supreme Court has decided people can own guns for the protection of their homes.

In the end it comes down to a statement I heard so long ago that I can't remember its source. In a society where guns are illegal, the only people with guns are criminals. People who are going to break the law and commit an armed felony don't care if guns are illegal, so lets allow law-abiding citizens the tools to protect themselves.

Read More...

Summary only...

One of the many things I hate about the Government is that the usual approach to creating change is by enacting new restrictions. Want more efficient cars? Simply prevent people from selling inefficient ones. The current system might be effective but I've long thought that competitions such as the ones the X PRIZE Foundation holds, that substantially reward success rather than penalize failure through force, were a much more interesting proposition. That's why I am so encouraged when I hear that John McCain is proposing this style of public policy in his campaign appearances.


McCain's proposal is to offer a $300 Million prize for the company that develops a battery that "far surpasses existing technology". It is inevitable that the implementation of the competition will arrive with customary abundance of bureaucratic red tape and the details as to what defines "far surpasses" are obviously not yet clear. But specifics aside this is still one of the few 'fresh' ideas I've seen in this year's race, and one of even fewer ideas that I like.

Left-leaning pundits like Wonkette are wasting no time on denouncing the "evils" of the idea:

And now John McCain will give the rich, global corporation that puts together its fancy car battery first a tax dollar from each and every one of you.

While I share the apprehension of it being tax-payer funded, I vehemently disagree with the implication that successes in environmentally friendly technologies are somehow lessened by the inventor's desire for profitability.

The way things stand right now, it seems unlikely that McCain will be elected President. If he were to be elected I wonder if this policy idea would be enacted or abandoned. Regardless, it is fantastic to hear proposals that seek to reward excellence rather than just raise the bar for the lowest common denominator.

Read More...

Summary only...

One of the more audacious moves that our legislators have pulled on American tax-payers was the passing of public financing for Presidential candidates. Under the guise of preserving the "integrity" of our political system, and not allowing companies and individuals to have too much "undue influence" on our elected officials, they generously offer matching funds for candidates, as well as a variety of other services, for which the tax-payers pick up the tab. In exchange, they agree to a wide variety of rules and regulations about the campaign instituted theoretically ensure fairness. Yesterday we were able to see an interesting dichotomy in the supposed "small-government party: John McCain accepted an $84 Million grant from the US government, while the big-government candidate, Barrack Obama, rejected it.

The irony of what happened here seems to be lost on many, who are focusing mostly on attacking Obama for a previous statement saying he would accept the funds. It is amazing for me to see the candidate that many -including myself- fear will do much to increase the size of government, also be the first candidate in 38 years to reject government subsidies for his campaign.

From every logical perspective, it makes no sense for Obama to accept it. He has had record breaking fund raising, having raised almost three times as much as McCain. The money he would be eligible for wouldn't benefit him as much as the restrictions would hurt. But instead of using this as a great opportunity to claim it as a victory for government reform and decreasing the size of government, Obama's camp is saying that the government simply isn't offering enough.

From the Politico.com article:

In order to fix the system, Kalman said, candidates who accept public financing should get more than $84 million and should be entitled to additional cash if they find themselves assailed by 527s – both provisions in the bill Obama co-sponsored.

Absolutely pathetic. Apparently its not enough that we're paying for bridges to nowhere, paying people to not work, and paying for McCain's campaign; Obama's thinks we need to pay more, in order to make it worth his while.

I really wish I could like Obama's policies as much as I like his persona. He's a great orator, he's charismatic, he just portrays that certain je ne sais quoi that one wants to have in the person who represents our country to the world. I just cannot get over the fact that he wants to expand entitlements, create socialized health care, and generally increase the size of our government. When I first heard that he was the first presidential candidate in 38 years to reject campaign finance I allowed myself to hope that perhaps this was a hint that he wouldn't be that bad, and perhaps that he'd consider at least some rhetoric about reducing the size of government. Instead what I got was what I should've expected to begin with, more of the same propaganda that the solution is to make the government do more, instead of less.

Read More...

Summary only...

You know what I’m tired of? I’m tired of watching the news every day, hungry for information, and receiving nothing but crumbs. It is impossible to obtain information from these petty peddlers who seem to believe that flashy on-screen graphics and bottom-of-the screen quotes (of what was said two seconds earlier) is a substitute for producing actual content. I watched several hours of the CNN coverage of the June 3rd primary before realizing that I knew no more at the end of the third hour than I did 15 minutes into the first.

What surprises me the most is that they claim they’re adapting to their viewer base. Their excuse for the excrement they ejaculate is “this is what America wants”. While there is surely a basis of truth in their plea, it’s also a copout. Simply said, infotainment is easier to deliver than information, and infotainment sells better than the news. I don’t begrudge them their right to gain as many viewers as they possibly can to increase their revenue. It is a business, and for a business to not seek profitability would be an idiotic contradiction. But the direction they have chosen to take towards obtaining profits precludes them from the claim that they are journalists.

It is much easier to do what I do, take a small piece of information and build an entertaining dialogue around it, than it is to research and report the entirety of a situation. A researcher must strive to be objective, but an infotainer gains from the loss of objectivity, because it allows for wild speculation. The infotainment industry doesn’t have to engage in the struggles of competition that existed in the past, where the broadcaster with the most information, the clearest reporting, the deepest digging, got the ratings. Now they can simply sell their perspective, with spin pandering to viewers that already agree with them. Take 30 seconds of information; spend the next 29.5 minutes spinning it left or right; profit. For me to say this might be considered self-condemnation. The difference is that I'm I’m an editorialist. It is not my job to research and discover the intricate facts, but to interpret them and give my opinion, and I make no pretense that what I'm doing is journalism.

If we are to live in the 24 hour news cycle, in the age of ADD and information bombardment, then the way of progress is to offer more through these media, not less. One would think that by this point in the presidential campaign, a real journalistic outfit would be able to publish a concise set of views on different issues by the major candidates, but with the exception of a few sound bites, trying to find out a candidates position on any specific issue is more difficult than finding out what Britney Spears wore to dinner last week. Instead we get a cult of personality for Obama on CNN and NBC, and for McCain on Fox News.

I suppose this post does not follow the traditional voice of this blog, but it comes out of the extreme frustration of seeking for news for the past couple of hours, and realizing it is nigh impossible to find it in the traditional avenues. Like many of my generation, I am unable to view the newscasters of this age with the same respect and trust that my parents and grandparents had in theirs. To attempt to compare Walter Cronkite to Bill O’Reily is as laughable as comparing the journalistic standards of the Enquirer to the New York Times. I can’t fight the feeling that the newsman is smiling not because of the satisfaction of a job well done, but the coy smirk of a con man that has tricked a mark. I struggle to find the difference between MSNBC and Entertainment Tonight. Yet we accept one as journalism and the other as pop-trash, when the only difference is the prestige we give by our willingness to accept the farce.

Read More...

Summary only...

What happens when you rely on the government to do your dirty work, instead of your success? Well, sometimes it comes back to bite you. A few weeks ago I discussed how the broadcast radio industry was lobbying to increase the royalties paid by internet radio. Well, it seems that now it's coming back to haunt them. This week the internet radio crowd got together with recording artists and are now asking congress force broadcast radio to pay royalties.



The National Association of Broadcasters' spokesman, Dennis Wharton said the following:

“The value of over-the-air play so far outweighs these other technologies — whether it’s satellite radio or Web streaming, it’s not a true comparison. Ask any artist what they’d prefer to be played on,” Wharton said.

That argument seems to make sense, the artists are getting a huge benefit and they should have a choice whether to accept the benefit in exchange for not receiving royalties. However, it appears recording artists don't get to make that decision:

The push to force radio stations to pay artists’ royalties dates back to the 1930s, when big-band leader Paul Whiteman instructed his record label to print “Not authorized for radio play” on his records. Radio still played the records. Whiteman sued and lost on appeal, and the industry has been fighting for royalties ever since, Simson said.

This entire ordeal is just baffling to me. Does Amazon.com get to give away my essays, since its good advertising for my books? I am hard pressed to understand what kind of logical court would decide in favor of the recording industry in that specific case. I don't think the government should be part of it either way, it should be an agreement between the radio companies and the broadcast companies, with the government just enforcing their contracts. But now that the radio companies have opened the flood gates with their attempts to squash internet radio, there's a vindictive side of me that hopes they have to pay too, but the entire ordeal worries me.

Instead of people making money based on the value of their service, they are making it by using the government to put the competition out of business. By fighting the broadcasting companies with their own dirty tricks, they might get their way this time, but they have accepted and engaged in trading in the clout economy. I would rather see the little guy win because we was doing things better than the big guy. I don't want to grow up in a world where it's not what you do, but who you know, that brings you success.

Read More...

Summary only...

This week: Kucinish, ED Hill, Rezko, and Russert


Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought up 35 articles of Impeachment against President Bush this week. The pretty much universal reaction, including from the DNC leadership was "What's the point". Kucinich aparently gets extremely cranky when the media stops portraying him as a lunatic and has to find new and more ridiculous ways to get his 15 minutes of fame.

---

E.D. Hill, who referred to a "fist pump" between Obama and His wife as a "terrorist fist jab" has lost her show because of it. Ms. Hill will continue to work for Fox News. When I first heard about the "terrorist fist jab" it made me laugh in shock about the ridiculousness of some pundits. However, after learning a bit more, I tend to believe Ms. Hill that she was just trying to set up the debate.

"A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently," said Hill in her show.

I guess it really depends on her intent. If she meant to imply that they were terrorists, then she got what she deserved. Based on the context, I think that she was trying to point out how ridiculous the over analysis and spin was. If this is the case, she could've used a different example.

---

Tony Rezko, who is now in prison on charges of "wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and attempted extortion", is claiming that federal prosecutors were pressuring him to implicate Obama:

They are pressuring me to tell them the ‘wrong’ things that I supposedly know about Gov. Blagojevich and Sen. Obama,” Rezko wrote in an undated letter released by the court this week. “I have never been party to any wrongdoing that involved the governor or the senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people.”

I think everyone was expecting Obama's name to be drug through the mud during this trail and to many people's surprise and disappointment (or glee) it wasn't.

---

Finally, this morning Tim Russert died of a heart attack at age 58. Russert was the host of the show Meet the Press. He was known as one of the last people in the media willing to ask the tough questions. For more information than you ever needed to know about him, you can check out NBC's webpage, which has turned into a virtual shrine for the day.
Type rest of the post here

Read More...

Summary only...

It’s not news that with the pure quantity of information on the internet comes a fair amount of misinformation. Anyone who has been using e-mail for more than a few weeks or so has gotten messages about the threat of microwaving water in a ceramic cup, or about needles filled with AIDS tainted blood hiding inside seats at movie theaters. These kinds of urban legends have always existed, and the internet just makes it easier to spread them. Since 1995 Snopes.com has worked to debunk these myths, from pop-rocks to Coca-Cola . This being an election year, there’s been a barrage of these urban-legend-style e-mails flowing at a constant pace into my inbox about the various candidates.

In the heat of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, there was an e-mail about Hillary Clinton’s pastor being a pedophile. I remember an e-mail about McCain not being a US Citizen, though I cannot find it now. I also remember about half a dozen different e-mails about Barrack Obama, in both Spanish and English, about him being a radical Muslim and probable terrorist. Of course, none of these stories are true. I’m not sure which pathology is worse: the one that leads to writing these fantastical stories or the one that results in believing them.

If it were just limited to chain mail in your inbox it wouldn’t be as bad as the fact that some “news” outlets have taken to repeating these claims. While Snopes.com already addresses the majority of these claims about our politicians already, the Obama campaign has decided to fight back. Their new (unfortunately named) website Fight the Smears was launched recently in an attempt to fight the most egregious of these attacks, with the first round taking on “Rumors” perpetuated by Rush Limbaugh and other republican pundits.

It is sad that there is so much misinformation out there, that the campaign had to create a page dedicated to fighting it. On the other hand it is encouraging that not only can the media and the people demand more accountability from politicians, but Politicians can now demand the same accountability from reporters and the people. In the end, while the internet does make it easier for cowards to send anonymous e-mails perpetuating lies, it also makes it easier for those seeking the truth to spread it. It injects internet culture with a needed dose of skepticism, even if it is mixed with a bit of spin. For those who wanna skip the spin, do what I do and just use Snopes.

Read More...

Summary only...

"Five billion years from now the sun will run out of Hydrogen gas" according to The Future of Energy. While worrying about the fate of the Sun is a waste of energy, for as far back as I can remember people have been worrying about the supply of oil. Having been born after the oil crisis in the late 70's, I have not experienced a world in which there wasn't widespread concern about our energy future. While the government spends billions of dollars on "energy alternatives", I would like to focus on what I believe will be the true solution to our energy woes: people out to make a buck.


I have more faith in entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to solve the energy crisis than I do in government subsidies. Government funded solutions like Ethanol are a failure and a waste of money. The reason they exist is more to do with politics and special interest lobbying than it is with finding realistic solutions for the end consumer.

In the field of power plants Ocean Power Technologies. The company, which netted over $90 Million in its IPO last year, develops buoys that use the mechanical energy of ocean waves to produce electricity. The company expects to be able to compete with traditional power plants within 10 years.

In automotive technology, I recently heard about Zero Pollution Motors, and their new "Air Car". Set for production by 2010, the Air Car's motor was designed by Guy Negre, who used to design engines for Formula 1 cars. Currently, the company claims that the fuel efficiency is about 105 Miles per gallon with an 8 gallon tank. Instead of using the gasoline to power the car, it is used to power a compressor that refills the air tanks when going at speeds above 35mph. For more in cars you can check out the X-prize competition, which is offering $10 Million prize for a car competition for real-cars (not concept cars) that offer more than 100mpg.

While this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of profitable solutions to our energy problems, it shows some of the ingenuity and creativity of the market. These and probably thousands of other companies are concerned not only with saving the environment, but also with making a profit. While I can't predict which, if any, of the new technologies will end up displacing the current standards, I can pretty much guarantee that the innovation that leads to it will come from the private sector, not the public one.

Read More...

Summary only...

In a year when presidential politics are getting groundbreaking achievements in terms of race, sex, and even age, it's laughable to see how some people cling to xenophobia and racism as a campaign tactic. I'm referring to Buddy Witherspoon, a Republican running in the South Carolina primary against incumbent US Senator Lindsey Graham who has Sen. McCain's endorsement. I know little of the Buddy Whitherspoon's politics, but his latest campaign ad gave me a hint:
(video after the jump)



It seems that Buddy has uncovered the biggest skeleton in Sen. Graham's closet: people who speak Spanish like him. The absolute dearth of information in what I would guess is intended to be an attack ad is laughable. This ad isn't likely to do much to help Buddy win the election, at least I hope not,However, this ad does show exactly the kind of strategy you really can't afford to use in the "information age".

I assume that the point of the ad was to allude that Sen. Graham isn't tough enough on immigration. What the ad actually shows is that Hispanic people who like Sen. Graham, implying that these people, because of the fact that they're speaking Spanish, are illegal immigrants. As a native born American of Mexican descent, and a native speaker of both Spanish and English, I can't help but feel that this guy is spitting in my face. That hardly seems like a sound policy for a Republican party who, as the Pew Hispanic Center claims, owed the 2004 election of President Bush to Hispanic-American voters.

The saving grace for the Republicans in this state, as far as Hispanics go, is Sen Lindsey Graham himself. When I went to the official site of the Buddy Witherspoon campaign, I was able to find this post titled "Lindsey Graham wants the "bigots" to shut up. Again Buddy's campaign seems to hit way off the mark. Instead of making Sen. Graham look as if he's a nut in favor of illegal immigration, he looks like a surprisingly reasonable man. The video of his speech is below:

Read More...

Summary only...

Yesterday I went to Bluesfest in Grant park, and one of the announcers said something that bothered me. During his introduction to B.B. King he said that the City of Chicago had been "Giving us Bluesfest for over 30 years", which brought loud applause from the audience. I like the Blues Festival, and the other large events that are held in Chicago's Grant Park, but the idea that it's a "free gift" from the government is one that bothers me.


According to Melodytrip.com the Chicago Blues Festival is "the largest free-admission blues festival in the world". While the admission to the event is free, the cost of putting it on certainly isn't. From what I can gather from the City of Chicago site, this and other events held around the City are organized by the City of Chicago Mayor's Office of Special events. According to the 2008 Preliminary budget for the City of Chicago (page 23), this office of the Mayor is receiving $6 Million dollars this year. While the cost of the events subsidized by corporate sponsors, the budget of the office organizing the events is paid for by tax-payers. Anything that you have to pay for, is hardly a free gift.

As the government grows in size and scope I keep hearing about more things that are "free" services from the Government. It bothers me that so many people just accept this at face value: Free parks, free festivals, free schools, free health care. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this is especially true when referring to the government. The source of the governments revenue is always taxes and fines, which are paid for by citizens. Therefore, when anything the government does is called "free" what they really mean is "funded by taxes". If we accept this language of "Free" as being appropriate, we're accepting the idea that the Government is a benevolent donor that "gives" us things, and that we should be thankful for these gifts. The truth is that any time the government "gives" something, it first had to take from someone. In the case of the Mayor's Office of Special Events, the bill is footed by the Hotel Operator's Occupation Tax:

The State of Illinois Hotel Operators' Occupation Tax is imposed on receipts from the occupation of renting, leasing, or letting rooms to individuals occupying such accommodations for less than 30 consecutive days.

So rather than thanking the government for its generous donation, we should be thanking the tax-payers that were forced to pay an additional 6% on their hotel bill for these events.

Read More...

Summary only...

Would you take profits from McDonald's to subsidize White Castle? What about from the Bellagio to subsidize the Golden Nugget in downtown Las Vegas? Apparently the Illinois legislature would, and has done something very similar: it is requiring that Illinois most profitable Casinos give parts of their profits to subsidize the state's horse racing industry. Illinois' Supreme Court agrees, stating that "casino gambling has hurt horse racing revenue in the past two decades". The question I would want to ask is "So what?".


There are few things more un-American than punishing people for their success over the competition. What the government is doing here is essentially guaranteeing the privilege of certain companies, of their choosing of course, to profitability at the expense of the competition. The bill, which was signed in May of 2006, was described by Gov. Blagojevich:

“These bills will help protect the jobs of thousands of hardworking people who depend on the horse racing industry for their livelihood. They will also create a more level playing field that will allow the horse racing industry to remain competitive in Illinois,” said Governor Blagojevich.

I don't understand how punishing those who are successful levels the playing field, it simply tilts it in favor of the failures.

She swallowed a spider to catch the fly...

But here's the kicker: the reason the racetracks are unable to compete with casinos in Illinois, like they are in almost every other state with both forms of gambling, is because Illinois wont allow them to have slot machines. The Illinois Horse Racing Strategic Council offered this as an alternative to the burden placed on casinos, but it was rejected. If the real concern was to allow the horse racing industry to thrive as an economic booster for the state, then why choke them with one hand while feeding them with the other?

This is yet another example of the government abusing their power to solve problems they created to begin with. In not allowing Illinois racetracks to have slot machines, the government ensured that they would not be able to compete with other gambling establishments in the state. To solve the problem they created through this restriction, they're now punishing casinos (but only the most successful ones).


There was an old lady who swallowed a horse. She's dead, of course.

When hearing stories like this, I can't help but think of the old nursery rhyme: She swallowed the Spider to catch the fly, I don't know why she swallowed the fly.

Read More...

Summary only...