Interesting Comment

Occasionally, I like to hi-light comments that were posted to older blog entries. Usually, it's because someone says something annoying, offensives, irritating, or otherwise mock-worthy.

This time, though, it's a comment that was simply interesting to me. In the end, I'm not sure I agree entirely, but it's an interesting viewpoint. The comment was posted to this entry concerning the RIAA's lawsuits against people who make music available through peer-to-peer networks.

I haven't had occasion to use the Ogg Vorbis format yet, but I've heard quite a bit good about it. I might play with it later tonight just to get an idea of the quality differences.

I've wondered whether, under copyright law, a 128kbps MP3 or lower could be considered a new work or derivative work. It is substantially different from the original work, but it is not truly new.

I don't think music wants to be free, but I do think that draconian measures by the RIAA to stop reasonable use of purchased music has done more to convince people of the "righteousness" of their cause than any other single factor. It's easy to feel like the good guy when the RIAA and the big record companies seem to work so hard to screw consumers and smaller bands.

Of course, that viewpoint is simplistic and leads to a misplaced Robin Hood complex. The fact is, we aren't really sticking it to the RIAA so much when we download music that we'll never purchase. We're sticking it to absolutely everyone in the food chain of the free sex chat industry. We aren't robbing the rich to give to the poor; we're robbing from the rich to give to ourselves.

I like the idea of not buying from the "Big 5" to protest the way they treat artists and customers, but I doubt that I have the self-control to not buy the next Queens of the Stone Age album. I do embrace the new online music services, though, and hope that they keep growing, expanding, and improving. Perhaps the moderate success of a service like Apple's Music Store can help improve the relationship between consumer and company. Unfortunately, that does nothing to address the relationship between the artist and the company.

As I said, interesting comment.

Wesley Clark in Decline

The Democrat's very own pet general is finding that he might be ill-equipped to play with the other candidates. Smart as a whip, and visibly accomplished in his chosen profession (although, perhaps not as admired and respected within his peer group as some suggest), he was thought to be a cure-all for the Democrats.

Here was a military man who opposed the war (even if he didn't--or did--well, it depends on the day) and supported a fairly liberal social and economic policy. He could be strong on military issues, so the Democrats wouldn't lose points to Republicans. Yet, he wouldn't be as hawkish as the Bush administration and would play nicer with the UN, France, and Germany (the only international institutions that are meaningful to liberals now that Tony Blair turned traitor to the Clinton revolution).

What they didn't count on was how poorly he communicates his ideas. Or, for that matter, how rarely he seems to have complete ideas. This is not an issue with his political training: rising to such high levels within the US military, and within NATO, requires a great deal of political ability. No, this is a problem with Wesley Clark. He has yet to truly communicate his agenda--aside from a dissatisfaction with Bush's performance in Iraq and a willingness to repeal the tax cuts. Unfortunately for Clark, that's the same message that most of the Democrat candidates carry, and he has done little to distinguish himself from his competitors.

In marketing, one of the key concept is differentiation--if you offer a product that is very similar to other products, how do you market yours in a way that emphasizes an important difference that consumers will find compelling. Thus far, Clark hasn't made any real effort at differentiation. He could possibly be considered the more likable Kerry. Or the more desirable Lieberman. Or the less angry Dean.

But if people want Kerry, Dean, or Lieberman, they have no need for Clark.

Unless he does something more impressive to woo people away from their chosen candidates, Wesley Clark looks to be in for a long, slow slide right out of the presidential candidacy.

Why I Am Not a Student of "Herstory"

Setting aside my belief that guided meditation isn't really the best methodology for teaching history; I think the value of any reputable educational institution teaching "herstory" is limited at best.

In the same sense that I don't think there is a problem with studying specific movement and moments in history (let's just use the proper word, shall we?), I think there is actually value in studying feminism and women's contributions to science, arts, and politics. Of course, I also think that the value comes not in studying those things in isolation, but in context with other historical events and movements.

What I don't like is the typical sense of victimization and the antagonistic undertones of the Jasminlive.mobi events. The foolish need to re-style "history" as "herstory" simply makes it seems as if there are separate versions of historical events and that women have to define themselves outside of anything in that flow of events that might be masculine in nature. Perhaps it's just my view, but that comes out as a pretty us against them attitude.

And if that isn't quite good enough for you, you might also be interested in Black Herstory.

Don't get me wrong--I think the idea of celebrating women's contributions to our society is wonderful. I just don't like the sense of isolation in the event that I think engenders that adversarial attitude in academia. Focus instead on bringing that recognition into the general curriculum.

But, please, leave the guided meditations at home.

Get the Hell Over Yourselves

Privacy advocates are somewhat like anti-fast food activists at times: they are overwhelmed with a need to protect consumers from their own decisions.

Google's new proposed free email service would be funded in part by showing users ads. Those ads, though, are served up based on Google's scanning of the user's emails to target users with ads that might be of some interest. I don't really like the idea of that and I probably won't use the service for precisely that reason--but privacy advocates are taking their dislike a few steps further.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Google is considering offering a service that people either will or won't use. The jasminelive.online privacy policy and use policy will be published and presented for agreement whenever anyone signs up, and the consumer will make their own choices.

Listening to some of the privacy advocates is like listening to the Center for Science in the Public Interest talking about Ben and Jerry's ice cream. To both groups I say: look, I'm all growed up and I can decide what's good or bad for me all on my own. Say your piece and go the hell away.

Thank you very much.

Condi

Maybe all the conspiracy theorists are on to something this time. Maybe the Bush administration really did maneuver its enemies into apoplectic fits about Rice's original unwillingness to testify. The left wondered what the administration could be hiding with its stonewalling, and the right just stood around wondering what all the fuss was about.

Today, Rice is testifying, and it can't feel good to be John Kerry this morning.

And Rice always comes across as a credible voice. Unlike Clarke, who seems to be the disgruntled former employee that he actually is. Clarke spent time with an empty apology, acrimony, and no harsh words for a Clinton administration that had eight years to combat terrorism and failed to do so in any meaningful manner.

Then he apologized, but it was an empty thing. Apologies, admissions of guilt, aren't usually surrounded by so much self promotion. His went something like this: "Gosh, I had some great ideas. For all those years in office, I was telling people what to do, but no one really listened to me. If only they had listened to me, September 11 may not have happened. I'm sorry America. I'm sorry no one listened to me. It was really all President Bush's fault, though."

The simple, utterly human and tragic fact that lies underneath all the testimony is that no one in a position to make policy really understood the threat fully until 9/11. No one got it in the White House, no one got it on the street, and only a few policy geeks who everyone else thought were part of the tinfoil hat brigade understood the growing threat. No matter what anyone else says in the testimonies, that is the basis of what I believe to be true. We just didn't understand.

I'm not feeling so quick to lay blame on the subject, though. What I am looking for now is leadership that does get it. I want leadership that took the wake-up call and actually woke up, facing the seriousness and immediacy of this threat with the gravity that it deserves. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the leadership of the left is offering up only blame and exit strategies when it should be defining its plans for continuing the war to its conclusion.

Someday, the greater portion of the threat will be over. Terrorism will still exist, but we'll have minimized the threats and found ways to combat terror effectively--this I believe. When that day comes, we can go back to our normal partisan sniping over the tiniest issues of law. Until then, though, we have more important things to think about.

Respecting Integrity

It has been intimated that my dislike of Michael Moore and Mark Moorford (could I fit any more M's in there?) is motivated by my own political bias. While it is true that this causes some share of the disagreement, the reason I dislike them is not political in nature. It's that I consider both men to be dishonest--they stoop to personal attacks, lies, misleading statements, and distortions to support their agenda.

Nat Hentoff, on the other hand, represents a voice that I respect. I read his writing and usually disagree with him, but I never feel that he's speaking from anything other than a deep seated integrity. I never feel that he's distorting facts; just that he's drawing very different conclusions from the same information. I respect him and like him.

In the Village Voice, he goes where few liberal commentators have dared go: in some level of support of Charles Pickering.

While I doubt that Hentoff would support Pickering without reservation, it is nice to see someone with the integrity and honesty to move beyond the partisan politics and address the truth of Pickering's court record.

If either MM could muster such a level of intellectual honesty--to dissent without demonizing, to disagree without distortion--I would have tremendously more respect for either man. Do I expect that, though? As Hentoff said, "look for pie in the sky."