In what is seen as a message to the White House, the Senate yesterday passed legislation regarding the prohibition of interrogation practices, specifically including the practice of waterboarding as a condemned practice. According to the Los Angeles Times, the measure has already been approved by the House of Representatives and is expected to be vetoed by the President. The CIA has previously admitted to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique. Instead of condemning this practice, the White House has indicated that this technique may be authorized again in the proper circumstances.
As is the case with most issues in Washington, the issue of waterboarding seems to have supporters on either side of the question. “Many Democratic lawmakers have denounced waterboarding as a form of torture that has undermined U.S. moral standing in the world.” On the other hand, it appears that Republicans refer to waterboarding as nothing more than an “enhanced” interrogation technique and claim the practice to be legal.
According to the article, “[t]he decision by Republicans to allow a vote on the measure – forgoing procedural moves that could have blocked it from coming to the floor – suggested that party leaders saw political advantage in setting up a presidential veto”, and this led to the measure passing 55-41 in the Senate and 222-199 in the House. In this count, five Republicans voted to approve the legislation while one Democrat voted against it. Included in those voting against the legislation for the Republicans was Senator John McCain, who has denounced waterboarding in his current Presidential campaign, but claims he “does not want to bind U.S. intelligence officers with restrictions designed for the military.” Senators Clinton and Obama did not take part in the vote.
We have spoken a bit about waterboarding in this blog, each time discussing it as a violation of human rights. Today, my conclusion is no different and I hope that such methods are eliminated from the CIA’s list of interrogation techniques. What is different in the case today is that the House and Senate have taken steps to pass legislation to specifically condemn the use of waterboarding only to most likely have the legislation vetoed by the President. From the vote count presented in the article, it is unlikely that a supermajority could be obtained to override this veto, and the article itself mentions a “political advantage” seen by Republicans in allowing the President to veto it.
Whatever this “political advantage” may be, it is disheartening to see such legislation used in this way. Instead of looking at the overall issue of human rights, Republicans (and Democrats) are attempting to put themselves in position for a run at this November’s Presidential race. John McCain, expected to be the Republican candidate, outwardly criticizes such interrogation practices and then votes against measures to stop them; this stance seems to be an obvious ploy to garner favor with voters while still staying on the Republican Party’s “good side” (not that he is the only candidate that has ever used or is currently using such practices, but he is the only current candidate who took place in this specific vote and which we are able to analyze). While such political maneuvering continues, these interrogation techniques continue to be used, violating the human rights of all who are subject to them.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Music Royalties and How Not to Make a Living
Nate Anderson of ArsTechnica presents an informative overview of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB)’s current hearing on songwriter royalty rates for the music industry. The CRB’s decision later this year will, as he writes, “determine—for the first time—what songwriters get for digital downloads and streaming music.” When we consider the precipitous drop in CD sales and the continuing shift toward digital music, it is safe to say that this decision is critical for all three parties involved. A brief breakdown:
Side One
Participants: Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing major-label music companies; Digital Media Association (DiMA), representing third-party digital media companies, including Amazon, Apple, Best Buy, and Yahoo!
What they want: A reduction in “mechanical rates,” or royalties that songwriters and publishers receive for copies of their music. Specifically, both seek a lower per-track mechanical rate for digital downloads (5-6 cents for RIAA, less for DiMA), and little to no mechanical rate for streaming music.
Reasoning: While digital music purchases are growing at an impressive clip, they haven’t offset the profit that major labels have lost from declining CD sales. The RIAA sees a reduced mechanical rate as a necessary move, since it would provide them with a higher profit margin. In contrast, the companies of the DiMA are in a healthier financial position, and their profit margin on digital purchases is arguably better than they claim. Still, there isn’t a foreseeable ceiling for digital music, and lower royalties would result in a significant financial advantage.
Side Two
Participants: National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), representing music publishers and songwriters
What they want: An increased per-track mechanical rate of 15 cents, and 12.5 percent of revenue from streaming music.
Reasoning: Many songwriters and publishers (and bands) depend upon royalties from mechanical rates to make a living, and the current CD mechanical rate of 9 cents per track usually isn’t a path to riches. While RIAA contends that lost CD revenue should require a sacrifice on the NMPA’s part, the NMPA argues that because digital music eschews many of the production and distribution costs associated with CDs, a higher rate is in order.
Which side has more of a case? Anderson’s analysis at the end of the article is telling:
“The move to cut (substantially) songwriter royalties doesn't sound like something done to ‘support the artists,’ though perhaps moving more songs at lower prices would be better for everyone in the long run. On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine prices staying the same and the labels and resellers simply keeping the extra cash. It's also important to note that it's not just the RIAA that wants to lower rates; Apple, Amazon, Napster, iMeem, Live365, RealNetworks, and more are all DiMA members, and they're pushing for the lowest rates of all” (emphasis mine).
Call me cynical, but I believe that “keeping the extra cash” is exactly what the RIAA and DiMA would do, leaving songwriters and publishers in an even worse financial position. Making a living from creating music is difficult enough for most people, even without having the music industry and retailers undercut what little there usually is to financially gain.
Side One
Participants: Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing major-label music companies; Digital Media Association (DiMA), representing third-party digital media companies, including Amazon, Apple, Best Buy, and Yahoo!
What they want: A reduction in “mechanical rates,” or royalties that songwriters and publishers receive for copies of their music. Specifically, both seek a lower per-track mechanical rate for digital downloads (5-6 cents for RIAA, less for DiMA), and little to no mechanical rate for streaming music.
Reasoning: While digital music purchases are growing at an impressive clip, they haven’t offset the profit that major labels have lost from declining CD sales. The RIAA sees a reduced mechanical rate as a necessary move, since it would provide them with a higher profit margin. In contrast, the companies of the DiMA are in a healthier financial position, and their profit margin on digital purchases is arguably better than they claim. Still, there isn’t a foreseeable ceiling for digital music, and lower royalties would result in a significant financial advantage.
Side Two
Participants: National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), representing music publishers and songwriters
What they want: An increased per-track mechanical rate of 15 cents, and 12.5 percent of revenue from streaming music.
Reasoning: Many songwriters and publishers (and bands) depend upon royalties from mechanical rates to make a living, and the current CD mechanical rate of 9 cents per track usually isn’t a path to riches. While RIAA contends that lost CD revenue should require a sacrifice on the NMPA’s part, the NMPA argues that because digital music eschews many of the production and distribution costs associated with CDs, a higher rate is in order.
Which side has more of a case? Anderson’s analysis at the end of the article is telling:
“The move to cut (substantially) songwriter royalties doesn't sound like something done to ‘support the artists,’ though perhaps moving more songs at lower prices would be better for everyone in the long run. On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine prices staying the same and the labels and resellers simply keeping the extra cash. It's also important to note that it's not just the RIAA that wants to lower rates; Apple, Amazon, Napster, iMeem, Live365, RealNetworks, and more are all DiMA members, and they're pushing for the lowest rates of all” (emphasis mine).
Call me cynical, but I believe that “keeping the extra cash” is exactly what the RIAA and DiMA would do, leaving songwriters and publishers in an even worse financial position. Making a living from creating music is difficult enough for most people, even without having the music industry and retailers undercut what little there usually is to financially gain.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The EPA and Mercury Emissions
On Friday, a Federal Court of Appeals found that the Environmental Protection Agency “ignored laws and twisted logic when it imposed new standards that were favorable to plant owners” when establishing new regulations related to mercury emissions from power-plant smokestacks. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. District’s decision is a second blow to the current administration’s pollution policy after the being previously found deficient, by the United States Supreme Court, in its regulation of greenhouse gasses.
According to the Washington Post, the EPA’s regulations called for a “cap-and-trade program”. Power plants would be required to limit their mercury emissions to a set level starting in 2010; those that could not meet these standards were to have the ability to purchase so called “credits” from plants that were below the regulated level.
As expected, this proposed regulation caught the eye and ire of environmentalists. These environmentalists argued that the ability to purchase credits, thereby sidestepping the regulations, would lead to the creation of “hot spots” in certain neighborhoods. While some reduction may be observed in a sampling of neighborhoods, it is the environmentalists’ claims that several neighborhoods would experience a higher level of pollution caused by mercury output from the power plants than areas in which plants were able to lower their emissions to the EPA approved level.
According to the article, Virginia and Maryland, home to a majority of the area’s power plants, have limits on these plants more stringent than those set by the EPA. However, areas such as Washington, with wind patterns that could aid in the spreading of the mercury emissions, may be more susceptible to mercury pollution if the EPA’s new regulations are approved.
In their decision, the Court of Appeals stated that the EPA “’deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting EPA's desires for the plain text’ of Congress's order”. Power companies claim that with such a ruling, the reduction of mercury pollution will actually be stalled, claiming that it is senseless to purchase the necessary equipment without knowing the acceptable levels of emissions that will finally be set.
It is hard to argue with the power companies’ stance that they will not purchase necessary equipment without knowing the final rules to be set by the EPA. Equipping the plant with the necessary parts will be a long and expensive task; having to do such a job potentially twice would at least double this time and expense. It can be argued that these plants should already be doing all they can to limit emissions, but as companies it is their goal to maximize profits while still staying within the scope of any applicable regulations.
Accordingly, it would seem that any blame should be placed on the EPA for attempting to sidestep an order from Congress. The fact that the current administration has already been rebuked by the United States Supreme Court for failing to control the emissions of greenhouse gasses and now is attempting to create exceptions to mercury emissions evidences the fact that the EPA currently is not adequately doing its job of protecting the environment. Had the EPA been concentrating on the protection of the environment, it is assumed that current mercury emissions levels would have already been properly set, instead of creating a “cap-and-trade” environmentally unfriendly program, and power plants would know the required standards needed to be met allowing them to upgrade as necessary to control these emissions.
According to the Washington Post, the EPA’s regulations called for a “cap-and-trade program”. Power plants would be required to limit their mercury emissions to a set level starting in 2010; those that could not meet these standards were to have the ability to purchase so called “credits” from plants that were below the regulated level.
As expected, this proposed regulation caught the eye and ire of environmentalists. These environmentalists argued that the ability to purchase credits, thereby sidestepping the regulations, would lead to the creation of “hot spots” in certain neighborhoods. While some reduction may be observed in a sampling of neighborhoods, it is the environmentalists’ claims that several neighborhoods would experience a higher level of pollution caused by mercury output from the power plants than areas in which plants were able to lower their emissions to the EPA approved level.
According to the article, Virginia and Maryland, home to a majority of the area’s power plants, have limits on these plants more stringent than those set by the EPA. However, areas such as Washington, with wind patterns that could aid in the spreading of the mercury emissions, may be more susceptible to mercury pollution if the EPA’s new regulations are approved.
In their decision, the Court of Appeals stated that the EPA “’deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting EPA's desires for the plain text’ of Congress's order”. Power companies claim that with such a ruling, the reduction of mercury pollution will actually be stalled, claiming that it is senseless to purchase the necessary equipment without knowing the acceptable levels of emissions that will finally be set.
It is hard to argue with the power companies’ stance that they will not purchase necessary equipment without knowing the final rules to be set by the EPA. Equipping the plant with the necessary parts will be a long and expensive task; having to do such a job potentially twice would at least double this time and expense. It can be argued that these plants should already be doing all they can to limit emissions, but as companies it is their goal to maximize profits while still staying within the scope of any applicable regulations.
Accordingly, it would seem that any blame should be placed on the EPA for attempting to sidestep an order from Congress. The fact that the current administration has already been rebuked by the United States Supreme Court for failing to control the emissions of greenhouse gasses and now is attempting to create exceptions to mercury emissions evidences the fact that the EPA currently is not adequately doing its job of protecting the environment. Had the EPA been concentrating on the protection of the environment, it is assumed that current mercury emissions levels would have already been properly set, instead of creating a “cap-and-trade” environmentally unfriendly program, and power plants would know the required standards needed to be met allowing them to upgrade as necessary to control these emissions.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Possibilities of Just Peacemaking
Among the books I received for Christmas was David Clough and Brian Stilter’s collective study Faith and Force: A Christian Debate about War. It’s an academic work that's highly readable, and it offers an excellent consideration of both Christian pacifism and just war tradition. (They also discuss the problems of two other positions: Christian realism and the holy war mentality.) One of the book’s highlights is a chapter-by-chapter series of debates between Clough (an English theologian, Methodist, and pacifist) and Stiltner (an American theologian, Catholic, and just war adherent), which originally began via e-mail in 2003 and provided the inspiration for their collaboration. As they explore “the authenticity and practicality” of both positions in relation to humanitarian intervention, the current Iraq War, and responding to acts of terrorism, their debates reiterate and clarify major arguments, divergences, and shared points of commonality.
That last aspect—commonality—is an important one. In my own efforts to maintain a critical attitude towards war and military intervention, I’ve struggled to define exactly where I stand. The pacifism that Clough advocates is largely compelling, and he asks difficult but necessary questions about relying on military solutions. I think he’s correct to argue that even in cases of a humanitarian crisis (where military intervention is perhaps most justifiable), war remains “an exceedingly blunt instrument to attempt the protection of civilians” (100). Conversely, I find that Stiltner' position is appealing in that he is more willing to find common ethical ground with others outside of the Christian church. He also presents reasonable arguments for the necessity of military responses when other alternatives are no longer possible. An internal debate arose as I considered their arguments: if war is necessary, when? How can we avoid resorting to violent means in a turbulent world?
Thankfully, both Clough and Stiltner anticipate this problem, and one of their common-ground solutions is quite promising: the theory of just peacemaking. As they write, just peacemaking theory involves “a collection of ten practices providing practical alternatives to war that was developed by pacifist and nonpacifist Christian ethicists working collaboratively” (66-67). Theologian Glen H. Stassen organized this particular project in the early 1990s, which resulted in the book Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War. The practices that Stassen and his collaborators originally outlined are as follows:
Initiatives
--Support nonviolent direct action.
--Take independent initiative to reduce threats.
--Use cooperative conflict resolution.
--Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice, and seek repentance and forgiveness.
Justice
--Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty.
--Foster just and sustainable development.
Love and Community
--Work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system.
--Strengthen the UN and international efforts for cooperation and human rights.
--Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade.
--Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.
The overarching goal of the above practices is to, as Clough and Stiltner write, “establish a peaceful and just resolution of conflicts using bloodless means” (67). Obviously, it would be difficult for many of us to directly fulfill certain practices; reducing arms trade and strengthening the UN are clearly “macro-” level political goals. Yet other practices are entirely possible on an everyday “micro-” level, such as participating in peacemaking groups, doing what we can to fight injustice, and employing conflict resolution techniques in our own lives. Moreover, while these practices are designed with Christians in mind, they are by no means limited to Christians, as terms such as democracy, conflict resolution, and sustainable development signify.
For Clough and Stiltner, the key is that “[t]hose who participate in the just peacemaking project temporarily set theoretical disagreements to one side and focus on what practical measures they can support” (68; emphasis mine). That certainly doesn’t render irrelevant any individual attempts (like my own) to hash out a sound theoretical position. It does, however, offer encouragement to begin practicing peaceful actions with others in our lives as we ponder the larger ethical issues that that accompany war and military solutions.
That last aspect—commonality—is an important one. In my own efforts to maintain a critical attitude towards war and military intervention, I’ve struggled to define exactly where I stand. The pacifism that Clough advocates is largely compelling, and he asks difficult but necessary questions about relying on military solutions. I think he’s correct to argue that even in cases of a humanitarian crisis (where military intervention is perhaps most justifiable), war remains “an exceedingly blunt instrument to attempt the protection of civilians” (100). Conversely, I find that Stiltner' position is appealing in that he is more willing to find common ethical ground with others outside of the Christian church. He also presents reasonable arguments for the necessity of military responses when other alternatives are no longer possible. An internal debate arose as I considered their arguments: if war is necessary, when? How can we avoid resorting to violent means in a turbulent world?
Thankfully, both Clough and Stiltner anticipate this problem, and one of their common-ground solutions is quite promising: the theory of just peacemaking. As they write, just peacemaking theory involves “a collection of ten practices providing practical alternatives to war that was developed by pacifist and nonpacifist Christian ethicists working collaboratively” (66-67). Theologian Glen H. Stassen organized this particular project in the early 1990s, which resulted in the book Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War. The practices that Stassen and his collaborators originally outlined are as follows:
Initiatives
--Support nonviolent direct action.
--Take independent initiative to reduce threats.
--Use cooperative conflict resolution.
--Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice, and seek repentance and forgiveness.
Justice
--Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty.
--Foster just and sustainable development.
Love and Community
--Work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system.
--Strengthen the UN and international efforts for cooperation and human rights.
--Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade.
--Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.
The overarching goal of the above practices is to, as Clough and Stiltner write, “establish a peaceful and just resolution of conflicts using bloodless means” (67). Obviously, it would be difficult for many of us to directly fulfill certain practices; reducing arms trade and strengthening the UN are clearly “macro-” level political goals. Yet other practices are entirely possible on an everyday “micro-” level, such as participating in peacemaking groups, doing what we can to fight injustice, and employing conflict resolution techniques in our own lives. Moreover, while these practices are designed with Christians in mind, they are by no means limited to Christians, as terms such as democracy, conflict resolution, and sustainable development signify.
For Clough and Stiltner, the key is that “[t]hose who participate in the just peacemaking project temporarily set theoretical disagreements to one side and focus on what practical measures they can support” (68; emphasis mine). That certainly doesn’t render irrelevant any individual attempts (like my own) to hash out a sound theoretical position. It does, however, offer encouragement to begin practicing peaceful actions with others in our lives as we ponder the larger ethical issues that that accompany war and military solutions.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Momma moose are smarter than the average bear
Researchers with the Wildlife Conservation Society found that each year for the past 10 years, pregnant moose in and around the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem move closer to humans when they are getting ready to deliver their young. The moose are seen along the roads and by buildings in order to avoid brown bears that are known to prey on moose calves. The brown bears are dreadfully road-shy so the moose moms are safe . . . at least from them. With the moose moms hitting the road there is strong evidence that the wildlife living in our national parks are profoundly affected by the presence of humans and humans to some degree serve to protect the moose from predators.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Uranium Mining in Arizona
For the first time in nearly twenty years, exploratory drilling for uranium deposits will be done in the area just outside the Grand Canyon National Park. According to the New York Times, said drilling will commence with the approval of the Forest Service; however, the Board of Supervisors for Coconino County, Arizona has already unanimously voted to attempt to prevent any drilling in the area.
The major issues cited regarding attempts to prevent this mining is threats to the environment and the effect the mining of radioactive materials will have on the health and well-being of mine workers and others in the nearby area. Apparently a full-dress environmental study was not performed by the Forest Service prior to granting approval. In defense of approving any drilling without such a study, the Forest Service claims that it is not required as any exploration would last less than a year, and it is uncertain whether such exploration will lead to full-scale mining.
According to the Kaibab National Forest’s spokesperson, Barbara McCurry claims that “her agency had little choice but to allow the drilling under the 1872 mining law that governs hard-rock mining claims.” She states that any exploratory drilling will be minimal, and that the agency will attempt to mitigate any potential impact the mining may cause. Also, if this exploratory mining led to a full-scale operation, Ms. McCurry has stated that a full environmental analysis would be required before granting permission.
However, according to Deb Hill, chairwoman of the Coconino Board, “We have a legacy, which isn’t too good, from the uranium mining in the past”. When drilling had been performed in the area previously workers and family members apparently had suffered from different forms of cancer. Also, there are concerns about safely transporting the radioactive material and the potential of contaminating some water sources.
Dusty Horwitt, who has written a report on behalf of the Environmental Working Group in Washington reporting on the new wave of uranium mining, states that, “If uranium mining operations are about to start on the edge of the Grand Canyon and federal officials say there’s nothing we can do, the time is now to reform the 1872 mining law”. In addition to the opposition from the Coconino Board of Supervisors and groups such as the Environmental Working Group, several Indian tribes in Arizona had previously voted to ban uranium mining on their land.
The fact that even this exploratory mining was approved without an environmental analysis, and with very little notice, is a bit worrisome. This would be the case no mater what was being mined as there is a chance that such mining could lead to some type of environmental issues. However, when added into the equation that the exploratory mines are being drilled to search for uranium, a highly radioactive material, questions about health and the environment are further compounded.
Perhaps it is time to rethink the 1872 mining law allowing this exploratory operation. It is clear that the county is wary of allowing drilling and is attempting to stop the same. Also, a number of Indian tribes in the area have previously expressed their opinion on the subject. But even with this opposition, it is likely that this mining will be allowed due to a law passed approximately 135 years ago, when concerns over the environment were not as prevalent and the full dangers of materials such as uranium were not fully known.
The major issues cited regarding attempts to prevent this mining is threats to the environment and the effect the mining of radioactive materials will have on the health and well-being of mine workers and others in the nearby area. Apparently a full-dress environmental study was not performed by the Forest Service prior to granting approval. In defense of approving any drilling without such a study, the Forest Service claims that it is not required as any exploration would last less than a year, and it is uncertain whether such exploration will lead to full-scale mining.
According to the Kaibab National Forest’s spokesperson, Barbara McCurry claims that “her agency had little choice but to allow the drilling under the 1872 mining law that governs hard-rock mining claims.” She states that any exploratory drilling will be minimal, and that the agency will attempt to mitigate any potential impact the mining may cause. Also, if this exploratory mining led to a full-scale operation, Ms. McCurry has stated that a full environmental analysis would be required before granting permission.
However, according to Deb Hill, chairwoman of the Coconino Board, “We have a legacy, which isn’t too good, from the uranium mining in the past”. When drilling had been performed in the area previously workers and family members apparently had suffered from different forms of cancer. Also, there are concerns about safely transporting the radioactive material and the potential of contaminating some water sources.
Dusty Horwitt, who has written a report on behalf of the Environmental Working Group in Washington reporting on the new wave of uranium mining, states that, “If uranium mining operations are about to start on the edge of the Grand Canyon and federal officials say there’s nothing we can do, the time is now to reform the 1872 mining law”. In addition to the opposition from the Coconino Board of Supervisors and groups such as the Environmental Working Group, several Indian tribes in Arizona had previously voted to ban uranium mining on their land.
The fact that even this exploratory mining was approved without an environmental analysis, and with very little notice, is a bit worrisome. This would be the case no mater what was being mined as there is a chance that such mining could lead to some type of environmental issues. However, when added into the equation that the exploratory mines are being drilled to search for uranium, a highly radioactive material, questions about health and the environment are further compounded.
Perhaps it is time to rethink the 1872 mining law allowing this exploratory operation. It is clear that the county is wary of allowing drilling and is attempting to stop the same. Also, a number of Indian tribes in the area have previously expressed their opinion on the subject. But even with this opposition, it is likely that this mining will be allowed due to a law passed approximately 135 years ago, when concerns over the environment were not as prevalent and the full dangers of materials such as uranium were not fully known.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Following up on…
--Prison reform: Back in October, I wrote about Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and his attempts to prioritize prison reform. In a December 12 blog entry, Bradford Plumer (who originally reported on Webb’s efforts for The New Republic) points us toward a relevant U.S. News and World Report feature from Alex Kingsbury concerning the highest prisoner re-entry rate in American history. Kingsbury notes that the term “re-entry” signifies a shift in prisoner reintegration strategies:
“Whereas rehabilitation assumed that individuals could change on their own, re-entry focuses on educating employers and communities about how they can help the offender on the outside. It aims to break though the red tape that has historically delayed social services for felons and to prevent the snags—like drug treatment programs that reject offenders who have been clean only a short time—that keep them from making a healthy return to society.
“In practice, that means synchronizing many different social and correctional services while offenders are still inmates and continuing that assistance after their release. Re-entry programs don't necessarily require more funding, just better coordination of existing resources like job training and stable housing. “Rehab is focused on the individual offender; re-entry is about communities, families, children, coworkers, and neighbors," says Amy Solomon, a criminal justice researcher at the Urban Institute.”
Kingsbury goes on to cite Kansas’ various re-entry programs as a positive model, where ex-convicts receive services that are designed to help them not only merely avoid recidivism, but also, for example, transition into steady employment with a livable wage. The results have been encouraging: since 2003, when the programs began, “the number of parole absconders has fallen by a third and recidivism has been cut in half.” Moreover, Plumer finds in a February 3 entry that in 2007, several states created oversight committees and/or enacted reform measures for their criminal justice systems. There is certainly a lot of room of improvement thanks to the tough-on-crime mentality, but all of this information is encouraging, and perhaps suggests a future broad-based change in American prison policies.
--Mike Huckabee and William Jennings Bryan: In writing about the differences between Huckabee and Bryan, I praised (and relied upon) Georgetown University professor of history Michael Kazin’s biography on Bryan. A few days after I posted my entry, I came across Kazin’s recent article for the start-up Washington Independent on how the two greatly differ. It goes without saying that his argument is stronger and more eloquent than mine. He also demonstrates that I was wrong on one point. While I wrote that “Bryan actively sought to apply his evangelical Christianity—largely based upon the Social Gospel—to the public square,” Kazin finds the following:
“How to apply one’s faith to public life has always been a controversial matter. In 1896, Bryan’s Republican opponents lambasted him for using the Crucifixion as a metaphor for his monetary policy. But neither in that campaign, nor during his two other races for president (1900 and 1908), did he ever, like Huckabee, advertise himself as ‘a Christian leader,’ give sermons in churches or call for amending the Constitution to fit ‘God’s standards.’
“For Bryan, who idolized Thomas Jefferson, the separation between church and state was absolute. As an exponent of the Social Gospel, he used the Bible to justify aid to the poor and scorn for the rich – not to install his faith into law. What’s more, he needed the votes of Catholics and Jews, and so avoided taking positions that would alienate them” (emphasis mine).
I forgot to bear in mind that Jefferson and Jesus were the primary influences upon Bryan’s politics—bad writing on my part. Anyway, the essay, like the biography, is well worth the time.
--Also regarding the Huckabee/Bryan post: In the comments section, I received criticism for 1) relying on Arkansas Times reporter Ernest Dumas’ “facile” analysis of FairTax (as opposed to that of Boston University Department of Economics chair Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a FairTax proponent); and 2) personally characterizing the FairTax plan as “wildly regressive.” The first criticism is a bit puzzling, because while Dumas obviously isn’t an economist, his negative appraisal of FairTax considers the same arguments that many economic experts have forwarded, including those of Bruce Bartlett. I realize that FairTax proponents haven’t exactly warmed to Bartlett’s critiques (and, therefore, would find fault with Dumas), but I’m not sure how that makes Dumas unqualified to write about the subject. Journalists are capable of writing competently about economic issues without possessing doctoral-level expertise, even if we sometimes find fault with their positions.
As for FairTax’s regressive nature, the Annenberg Political Fact Check’s examination of the plan’s numbers is quite compelling. At the end, they write:
“We don’t actually call the FairTax “regressive,” as AFT [Americans for Fair Taxation, who support the plan] implies that we do. We reiterate, however, that those earning between $15,000 (or perhaps as much as about $24,000 – see our addition to the “Who Really Pays” portion of our article above) and $200,000 per year – virtually all middle-class Americans – would pay a higher share of the tax burden under this proposal. Those earning more would see their share drop, as even AFT economists admit” (italics in original).
When citizens in higher-income brackets would pay less in taxes while those in lower to middle-income brackets would face tax increases, I would say that qualifies as a regressive policy proposal. The AFPC was generous in refusing to use the “r-word,” but the above paragraph makes a clear point regardless.
“Whereas rehabilitation assumed that individuals could change on their own, re-entry focuses on educating employers and communities about how they can help the offender on the outside. It aims to break though the red tape that has historically delayed social services for felons and to prevent the snags—like drug treatment programs that reject offenders who have been clean only a short time—that keep them from making a healthy return to society.
“In practice, that means synchronizing many different social and correctional services while offenders are still inmates and continuing that assistance after their release. Re-entry programs don't necessarily require more funding, just better coordination of existing resources like job training and stable housing. “Rehab is focused on the individual offender; re-entry is about communities, families, children, coworkers, and neighbors," says Amy Solomon, a criminal justice researcher at the Urban Institute.”
Kingsbury goes on to cite Kansas’ various re-entry programs as a positive model, where ex-convicts receive services that are designed to help them not only merely avoid recidivism, but also, for example, transition into steady employment with a livable wage. The results have been encouraging: since 2003, when the programs began, “the number of parole absconders has fallen by a third and recidivism has been cut in half.” Moreover, Plumer finds in a February 3 entry that in 2007, several states created oversight committees and/or enacted reform measures for their criminal justice systems. There is certainly a lot of room of improvement thanks to the tough-on-crime mentality, but all of this information is encouraging, and perhaps suggests a future broad-based change in American prison policies.
--Mike Huckabee and William Jennings Bryan: In writing about the differences between Huckabee and Bryan, I praised (and relied upon) Georgetown University professor of history Michael Kazin’s biography on Bryan. A few days after I posted my entry, I came across Kazin’s recent article for the start-up Washington Independent on how the two greatly differ. It goes without saying that his argument is stronger and more eloquent than mine. He also demonstrates that I was wrong on one point. While I wrote that “Bryan actively sought to apply his evangelical Christianity—largely based upon the Social Gospel—to the public square,” Kazin finds the following:
“How to apply one’s faith to public life has always been a controversial matter. In 1896, Bryan’s Republican opponents lambasted him for using the Crucifixion as a metaphor for his monetary policy. But neither in that campaign, nor during his two other races for president (1900 and 1908), did he ever, like Huckabee, advertise himself as ‘a Christian leader,’ give sermons in churches or call for amending the Constitution to fit ‘God’s standards.’
“For Bryan, who idolized Thomas Jefferson, the separation between church and state was absolute. As an exponent of the Social Gospel, he used the Bible to justify aid to the poor and scorn for the rich – not to install his faith into law. What’s more, he needed the votes of Catholics and Jews, and so avoided taking positions that would alienate them” (emphasis mine).
I forgot to bear in mind that Jefferson and Jesus were the primary influences upon Bryan’s politics—bad writing on my part. Anyway, the essay, like the biography, is well worth the time.
--Also regarding the Huckabee/Bryan post: In the comments section, I received criticism for 1) relying on Arkansas Times reporter Ernest Dumas’ “facile” analysis of FairTax (as opposed to that of Boston University Department of Economics chair Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a FairTax proponent); and 2) personally characterizing the FairTax plan as “wildly regressive.” The first criticism is a bit puzzling, because while Dumas obviously isn’t an economist, his negative appraisal of FairTax considers the same arguments that many economic experts have forwarded, including those of Bruce Bartlett. I realize that FairTax proponents haven’t exactly warmed to Bartlett’s critiques (and, therefore, would find fault with Dumas), but I’m not sure how that makes Dumas unqualified to write about the subject. Journalists are capable of writing competently about economic issues without possessing doctoral-level expertise, even if we sometimes find fault with their positions.
As for FairTax’s regressive nature, the Annenberg Political Fact Check’s examination of the plan’s numbers is quite compelling. At the end, they write:
“We don’t actually call the FairTax “regressive,” as AFT [Americans for Fair Taxation, who support the plan] implies that we do. We reiterate, however, that those earning between $15,000 (or perhaps as much as about $24,000 – see our addition to the “Who Really Pays” portion of our article above) and $200,000 per year – virtually all middle-class Americans – would pay a higher share of the tax burden under this proposal. Those earning more would see their share drop, as even AFT economists admit” (italics in original).
When citizens in higher-income brackets would pay less in taxes while those in lower to middle-income brackets would face tax increases, I would say that qualifies as a regressive policy proposal. The AFPC was generous in refusing to use the “r-word,” but the above paragraph makes a clear point regardless.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Florida Ruling Prevents Observation of Vote Tally
Just days prior to the primary election in Florida, a legal opinion was issued which disallows observers from being present when the final votes are tallied. According to the Herald Tribune “[t]he closure comes because of questions posed by Sarasota County Election Supervisor Kathy Dent, whose controversial District 13 congressional race drew national scrutiny in 2006.”
Based on this ruling, election observers can be restricted from central computer rooms while votes are being tallied. Also, the public and observers may be prohibited from viewing the certification of votes by the canvassing boards, as long as an alternative, such as loudspeakers to listen in on the canvassing, is provided. Already at least one election observer has been barred from witnessing the vote tally.
Ms. Dent claims she merely sought "clarification and edification" of rules for election workers; she asserts that she has no need or desire to limit scrutiny of the vote counting procedures. In fact, according to the article Ms. Dent “opened her computing room to a handful of observers” for Tuesday’s primary. Observers apparently witnessed modem connection failures and failure to transfer votes electronically leading to manual input.
For those supporting this ruling, primarily it seems Election Supervisors, they cite to the fact that rooms do not really allow for a large number of people, and other valuables and keys are kept in the room which cannot be adequately watched while votes are being tallied. Finally, the issue of trade secrets comes into play as there is allegedly a risk of some of the “observers” gaining entry in order to provide this information to competitors.
Lead counsel of the Florida Democratic Party has already suggested that litigation may be necessary to challenge this ruling. At the least, it has been indicated that talks will be held with the state in order to attempt to reverse this ruling or come to some acceptable middle ground.
Florida, much like Ohio, has been the subject of concern during election season. Since the “hanging chad” incident and the undervote issue which occurred last election in Ms. Dent’s precinct, voter faith in Florida’s election procedure, both inside and outside of the state, has apparently been shaken. This latest decision would seem to shake voter confidence even further. As Florida election law expert Mark Herron is quoted in the article, “"Anytime you move something behind the curtain, people are going to get suspicious”.
Aside from voters’ perceptions, Ms. Dent’s opening of her computer room presents concrete reasoning for why observers should be allowed. With computer errors such as those experienced Tuesday leading to manual input, which is subject to greater threats of error, there are issues that need to be observed and reported upon in order to ensure that no errors actually exist and that any problems are fixed for future elections. I would doubt that the provision of loudspeakers so observers could listen in would not have necessarily provided an accurate picture of the troubles suffered, nor of the manner in overcoming these problems. While issues of security need to be dealt with, it is also necessary to ensure that votes are accurately tallied and recorded.
Based on this ruling, election observers can be restricted from central computer rooms while votes are being tallied. Also, the public and observers may be prohibited from viewing the certification of votes by the canvassing boards, as long as an alternative, such as loudspeakers to listen in on the canvassing, is provided. Already at least one election observer has been barred from witnessing the vote tally.
Ms. Dent claims she merely sought "clarification and edification" of rules for election workers; she asserts that she has no need or desire to limit scrutiny of the vote counting procedures. In fact, according to the article Ms. Dent “opened her computing room to a handful of observers” for Tuesday’s primary. Observers apparently witnessed modem connection failures and failure to transfer votes electronically leading to manual input.
For those supporting this ruling, primarily it seems Election Supervisors, they cite to the fact that rooms do not really allow for a large number of people, and other valuables and keys are kept in the room which cannot be adequately watched while votes are being tallied. Finally, the issue of trade secrets comes into play as there is allegedly a risk of some of the “observers” gaining entry in order to provide this information to competitors.
Lead counsel of the Florida Democratic Party has already suggested that litigation may be necessary to challenge this ruling. At the least, it has been indicated that talks will be held with the state in order to attempt to reverse this ruling or come to some acceptable middle ground.
Florida, much like Ohio, has been the subject of concern during election season. Since the “hanging chad” incident and the undervote issue which occurred last election in Ms. Dent’s precinct, voter faith in Florida’s election procedure, both inside and outside of the state, has apparently been shaken. This latest decision would seem to shake voter confidence even further. As Florida election law expert Mark Herron is quoted in the article, “"Anytime you move something behind the curtain, people are going to get suspicious”.
Aside from voters’ perceptions, Ms. Dent’s opening of her computer room presents concrete reasoning for why observers should be allowed. With computer errors such as those experienced Tuesday leading to manual input, which is subject to greater threats of error, there are issues that need to be observed and reported upon in order to ensure that no errors actually exist and that any problems are fixed for future elections. I would doubt that the provision of loudspeakers so observers could listen in would not have necessarily provided an accurate picture of the troubles suffered, nor of the manner in overcoming these problems. While issues of security need to be dealt with, it is also necessary to ensure that votes are accurately tallied and recorded.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Human Rights Close to Home: Putting the U.S. Under the Magnifying Glass
Racism, violence against women, genocide, and poverty are what come to mind when someone mentions human rights violations to me. It is a global issue that needs a local solution.
“When talking about human rights, there's always been a global emphasis,” said UD senior Erin Aldrich, co-chair of Human Rights Week on campus. “We're trying to show people you don't have to look far outside of the city to find human rights issues.”
UD students have put together a slate of local providers of health care, financial services, housing and education to address the theme of “Human Rights at Home” during Human Rights Week Feb. 3-8.
Started by UD’s human rights program — the first such undergraduate program in the nation — the student-run Human Rights Week aims to engage students in social justice issues locally and globally.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Continuing Election Technology Problem in Ohio
Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported on continued voting problems in Ohio. In this instance, the ACLU is attempting to prevent the use of optical scan ballots, claiming that Cuyahoga County would be using “balloting technology that does not give notice to voters of problems with their ballot.” The ACLU contends that without the opportunity to be notified of and correct errors, a large number of ballots will go uncounted.
According to a press release issued January 28, the ACLU has filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with the Federal Court for the Northern District of Ohio, a copy of which can be found here. The ACLU is attempting to prevent Cuyahoga County’s use of these optical scan ballots which would be sent to a central processing location for tabulation purposes. Such a system, according to the ACLU, does not alert voters of any errors in their ballot (ex. double voting, failure to mark ballot) and does not provide the ability for voters to correct such errors. If optical scan ballots are to be used, the ACLU contends that the ballots should be scanned at the polls, as is done in other Ohio counties, to alert voters to potential errors.
A deadline of February 4 has been set for the State to respond to this motion. Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has stated that the ACLU”s proposal would disallow the casting of absentee ballots. In essence, absentee ballots are completed and counted in the same manner as the ballots in question – absentee voters complete their optical scan ballot at home and mail it into a central location to be tabulated, without any notification of potential errors that would need to be corrected. In addition, Brunner has alleged that this lawsuit comes too late to allow a switch back to the previous system of touch-screen voting.
The goal behind the requirement of moving all states to some type of electronic voting was to ensure that preventable errors could in fact be prevented. However, as has been demonstrated in Ohio and other locations, many of the new systems are inaccurate and/or unreliable. As such problems were occurring in Ohio, the Secretary of State ordered a return to what is considered a more trustworthy system.
The major difficulty in the present situation is the closeness of the primary election in Ohio. The decision made by Jennifer Brunner was made knowing that something had to be done in order to ensure the most accurate and reliable system of voting with sufficient time to train poll workers. No matter what choice she made – stay with touch-screen or move to optical scan – the potential for error existed; knowing this, it seems that she made the best possible choice under the existing conditions.
That being said, I am not sure why other Ohio counties have on-site optical scanners while Cuyahoga County does not. Having these scanners on-site would seem to placate the ACLU while preventing voter error. The issue now may once again come down to time – there may not have been enough time to acquire such machines for the county and/or there may not have been enough time for training. However, now that this issue has been brought to light by the ACLU, the smart solution would be to carry on with the primary election as planned while ensuring that the proper technology will be in place for the November election. As there is little time to retrain poll workers and/or bring in additional technology, this plan would seem to allow the primary election to run in the smoothest manner with lesser fear of poll worker error, while also correcting any errors and providing sufficient training to poll workers in time for the November Presidential Election.
According to a press release issued January 28, the ACLU has filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with the Federal Court for the Northern District of Ohio, a copy of which can be found here. The ACLU is attempting to prevent Cuyahoga County’s use of these optical scan ballots which would be sent to a central processing location for tabulation purposes. Such a system, according to the ACLU, does not alert voters of any errors in their ballot (ex. double voting, failure to mark ballot) and does not provide the ability for voters to correct such errors. If optical scan ballots are to be used, the ACLU contends that the ballots should be scanned at the polls, as is done in other Ohio counties, to alert voters to potential errors.
A deadline of February 4 has been set for the State to respond to this motion. Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has stated that the ACLU”s proposal would disallow the casting of absentee ballots. In essence, absentee ballots are completed and counted in the same manner as the ballots in question – absentee voters complete their optical scan ballot at home and mail it into a central location to be tabulated, without any notification of potential errors that would need to be corrected. In addition, Brunner has alleged that this lawsuit comes too late to allow a switch back to the previous system of touch-screen voting.
The goal behind the requirement of moving all states to some type of electronic voting was to ensure that preventable errors could in fact be prevented. However, as has been demonstrated in Ohio and other locations, many of the new systems are inaccurate and/or unreliable. As such problems were occurring in Ohio, the Secretary of State ordered a return to what is considered a more trustworthy system.
The major difficulty in the present situation is the closeness of the primary election in Ohio. The decision made by Jennifer Brunner was made knowing that something had to be done in order to ensure the most accurate and reliable system of voting with sufficient time to train poll workers. No matter what choice she made – stay with touch-screen or move to optical scan – the potential for error existed; knowing this, it seems that she made the best possible choice under the existing conditions.
That being said, I am not sure why other Ohio counties have on-site optical scanners while Cuyahoga County does not. Having these scanners on-site would seem to placate the ACLU while preventing voter error. The issue now may once again come down to time – there may not have been enough time to acquire such machines for the county and/or there may not have been enough time for training. However, now that this issue has been brought to light by the ACLU, the smart solution would be to carry on with the primary election as planned while ensuring that the proper technology will be in place for the November election. As there is little time to retrain poll workers and/or bring in additional technology, this plan would seem to allow the primary election to run in the smoothest manner with lesser fear of poll worker error, while also correcting any errors and providing sufficient training to poll workers in time for the November Presidential Election.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Daniel Boorstin, Tim Russert, and Electoral Pseudo-Events
It was in 1961 that American historian Daniel Boorstin introduced the idea of “pseudo-events” in his book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Arguing that the rise of mass media in modern culture had left us with an insatiable demand for constant news and information, Boorstin defined the pseudo-event as a “planned” event “for the immediate purpose of being reported or reproduced” (11). Instead of waiting for newsworthy events to naturally occur, the demands of a twenty-four hour media industry led to staged techniques that would make news: interviews, press conferences, news releases and leaks, and so forth.
In the first chapter of The Image, Boorstin applies this analysis to media coverage of American politics, and finds that the Presidency is particularly tied to pseudo-events. Writing just after the 1960 election season—where the landmark televised “Great Debates” were critical to John F. Kennedy’s eventual victory over Richard Nixon—he sharply criticized how a series of pseudo-events reduced “great national issues to trivial dimensions” due to the debate format (41). As he writes near the end of the chapter:
“If we test Presidential candidates by their talents on TV quiz performances, we will, of course, choose presidents for precisely those qualifications. In a democracy, reality tends to conform to the pseudo-event. Nature imitates art” (43-44).
Boorstin’s insight was ahead of its time because he realized the centrality of not only how Presidential candidates answered their debate questions, but also what sort of questions they faced during the debates (as well as elsewhere): “News commentators can add a new appeal as dramatic critics to their traditional roles as interpreters of current history” (17). Though his death in February 2004 occurred just as the Internet began to play an increased role in election-year politics, he was able to witness just how crucial news analysts have become to making or breaking the fortunes of a particular candidate. This is why I thought of Boorstin while recently reading liberal Atlantic writer Matthew Yglesias’ essay “The Unbearable Inanity of Tim Russert,” even though Boorstin was politically conservative. Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press and a frequent moderator for Presidential debates, has a reputation for being a tough, unpredictable questioner in both roles. Yglesias contends that this reputation is misleading:
“Russert has created a strike zone of his own where toughness meets irrelevance. John McCain entered the zone last May, when he went on the show and repeatedly asserted that the Bush tax cuts had increased the federal government's revenue. Hearing this, a tough but conscientious journalist might have pointed out that this is demonstrably false. Russert, however, reached for a trusty hardball and sent it sailing. McCain, he pointed out, was now supporting extending the very same Bush tax cuts that he had once opposed.
“Well, yes, but this was a bit like asking someone who says the world is flat why he used to say the earth was round. The contradiction Russert pointed out was real—but hardly central. In fact, if tax cuts actually had increased revenues, then McCain's change of heart would have been perfectly logical. The real problem was that McCain's theory of the relationship between tax rates and revenue wasn't true. In Russertland, though, as long as you acknowledge the contradiction, the questioner is satisfied” (all emphasis in original).
Just as Boorstin derides quiz-show style questioning as a determiner of Presidential worthiness, the above passage demonstrates how McCain lacked the opportunity to provide a substantive policy answer. Indeed, Yglesias echoes Boorstin in noting that “[v]iewers watch a candidate getting grilled by Russert not to assess the candidate's views but to assess his or her ability to withstand the grilling,” which encourages substandard questions. Correspondingly, this format also leads to less informative responses from candidates—they are rewarded for sounding and looking the most Presidential.
Of course, Boorstin’s primary concern in The Image is the debate-as-pseudo-event itself, which he feels is an inadequate means of informing the American public. This is true. Still, I think Yglesias makes a reasonable case that debate questions can be more beneficial than what Russert is posing. Yet the problem is that Russert’s strategy remains highly self-beneficial:
“…Russert's goal isn't to inform his audience. He's there to ‘make news’—to get his guest to say something embarrassing that lands in the next day's papers or on the NBC Nightly News. The politicians, in turn, go on the show determined not to make news. And why do they bother? Because…it's a rite of passage, and any politician too chicken to play Russert's inane games would never garner the respect of the political class.”
Russert has made his career as one of the “dramatic critics” of political pseudo-events, much like Boorstin foresaw nearly five decades ago. Unfortunately, we—the audience and voting electorate—are the worse off for it.
In the first chapter of The Image, Boorstin applies this analysis to media coverage of American politics, and finds that the Presidency is particularly tied to pseudo-events. Writing just after the 1960 election season—where the landmark televised “Great Debates” were critical to John F. Kennedy’s eventual victory over Richard Nixon—he sharply criticized how a series of pseudo-events reduced “great national issues to trivial dimensions” due to the debate format (41). As he writes near the end of the chapter:
“If we test Presidential candidates by their talents on TV quiz performances, we will, of course, choose presidents for precisely those qualifications. In a democracy, reality tends to conform to the pseudo-event. Nature imitates art” (43-44).
Boorstin’s insight was ahead of its time because he realized the centrality of not only how Presidential candidates answered their debate questions, but also what sort of questions they faced during the debates (as well as elsewhere): “News commentators can add a new appeal as dramatic critics to their traditional roles as interpreters of current history” (17). Though his death in February 2004 occurred just as the Internet began to play an increased role in election-year politics, he was able to witness just how crucial news analysts have become to making or breaking the fortunes of a particular candidate. This is why I thought of Boorstin while recently reading liberal Atlantic writer Matthew Yglesias’ essay “The Unbearable Inanity of Tim Russert,” even though Boorstin was politically conservative. Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press and a frequent moderator for Presidential debates, has a reputation for being a tough, unpredictable questioner in both roles. Yglesias contends that this reputation is misleading:
“Russert has created a strike zone of his own where toughness meets irrelevance. John McCain entered the zone last May, when he went on the show and repeatedly asserted that the Bush tax cuts had increased the federal government's revenue. Hearing this, a tough but conscientious journalist might have pointed out that this is demonstrably false. Russert, however, reached for a trusty hardball and sent it sailing. McCain, he pointed out, was now supporting extending the very same Bush tax cuts that he had once opposed.
“Well, yes, but this was a bit like asking someone who says the world is flat why he used to say the earth was round. The contradiction Russert pointed out was real—but hardly central. In fact, if tax cuts actually had increased revenues, then McCain's change of heart would have been perfectly logical. The real problem was that McCain's theory of the relationship between tax rates and revenue wasn't true. In Russertland, though, as long as you acknowledge the contradiction, the questioner is satisfied” (all emphasis in original).
Just as Boorstin derides quiz-show style questioning as a determiner of Presidential worthiness, the above passage demonstrates how McCain lacked the opportunity to provide a substantive policy answer. Indeed, Yglesias echoes Boorstin in noting that “[v]iewers watch a candidate getting grilled by Russert not to assess the candidate's views but to assess his or her ability to withstand the grilling,” which encourages substandard questions. Correspondingly, this format also leads to less informative responses from candidates—they are rewarded for sounding and looking the most Presidential.
Of course, Boorstin’s primary concern in The Image is the debate-as-pseudo-event itself, which he feels is an inadequate means of informing the American public. This is true. Still, I think Yglesias makes a reasonable case that debate questions can be more beneficial than what Russert is posing. Yet the problem is that Russert’s strategy remains highly self-beneficial:
“…Russert's goal isn't to inform his audience. He's there to ‘make news’—to get his guest to say something embarrassing that lands in the next day's papers or on the NBC Nightly News. The politicians, in turn, go on the show determined not to make news. And why do they bother? Because…it's a rite of passage, and any politician too chicken to play Russert's inane games would never garner the respect of the political class.”
Russert has made his career as one of the “dramatic critics” of political pseudo-events, much like Boorstin foresaw nearly five decades ago. Unfortunately, we—the audience and voting electorate—are the worse off for it.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Medical Aid for First Responders
The Washington Post offers a story today about the fate of out-of-state volunteers who assisted with the cleanup of the wreckage in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, as this story reports, it appears that the plans the government had to assist these volunteers have been at least temporarily, and hopefully not permanently, suspended.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Mike Huckabee, William Jennings Bryan, and Economic Populism
In a late December profile of Mike Huckabee, Time political reporter Michael Scherer captures a central talking point concerning Huckabee’s impressive (and once seemingly improbable) candidacy: “…as Huckabee now mounts his closing argument for the Iowa caucuses, he has moved full bore into the rhetoric of economic populism.” Briefly setting aside Scherer’s use of the qualifier “rhetoric,” the term “economic populism” (or simply “populism”) has become convenient shorthand in the media to describe how Huckabee differs from the orthodoxy of the other Republican presidential hopefuls. This is partially because he emphasizes his status as a “Main Street Republican”—one who, as Robynn Tysver writes for the Omaha World-Herald, “worked to improve schools and roads, touted preventive health care and pushed for health insurance for poor children” as governor of Arkansas. The populist tag also originates from conservative criticism of his fiscal policies. Huckabee increased some taxes while in Arkansas and has traded barbs with the free-market-favoring Club for Growth, leading some pro-business conservatives to characterize him as economically liberal; Matt Lewis’ title for an August blog entry on Townhall.com, “William Jennings Huckabee” is an apt example.
The Huckabee-William Jennings Bryan comparison has reappeared elsewhere within media coverage of Huckbee’s campaign as a means of describing his populist message. Does this mean that he really does bear a modern-day resemblance to Bryan? Relying on Michael Kazin’s fantastic biography of Bryan, it’s possible to discern some similarities between the two. On the campaign trail, Huckabee relies on consistent appeals to lower- and middle-class demographics, just as Bryan sought “middling Americans” to form the core of his supporters (196). Bryan would certainly appreciate Huckabee’s reference to the Club for Growth as the “Club for Greed,” though the former was more frequently aggressive in attacking corporations and big business. Bryan also sold his arguments well because his speechmaking talents were stunning; Huckabee doesn’t even measure up to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in this regard, but he is, nonetheless, quite good at presenting himself in a folksy manner, which has been critical to his success so far. Finally, Bryan actively sought to apply his evangelical Christianity—largely based upon the Social Gospel—to the public square. Likewise, Huckabee stated in a recent interview with Beliefnet that “the application of Christian principles in government ought to bring a greater sense of justice,” indicating how his own (more conservative) evangelicalism influences his public policy.
When it comes to economic populism, however, the similarities quickly cease. Bryan’s economic proposals were remarkably progressive by both the standards of his era and of the present day. He called for a federal bank insurance program nearly four decades before Franklin Roosevelt made the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation part of his New Deal reforms. At the 1896 Democratic national convention in Chicago, Bryan’s support for “free silver” led him to help create a party platform that “thoroughly repudiated” the more conservative economic policies of then-President (and fellow Democrat) Grover Cleveland; this marked a transition toward the modern liberal movement (55-56). In his concern for utility regulation, he called for public ownership of the railroads during the first decade of the 1900s, though many Democrats disagreed with him. And as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson from 1913-1915, he engineered legislation that created the progressive federal income tax.
In comparison, it is impossible to honestly refer to Huckabee as a modern-day economic populist. Ernest Dumas of the Arkansas Times (which has extensively covered Huckabee’s governorship) provides the central reason why in an analysis of Huckabee’s “FairTax” proposal. In short, FairTax is a wildly regressive plan that would not only disproportionately favor the richest Americans, it would also fail to generate the type of revenue necessary for even the basic functions of federal government. Additionally, as Dumas notes in a separate piece, “nothing in his [Huckabee’s] political past showed any particular sympathy for labor,” and he supports the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts. Yet it is FairTax that is most striking, because although Huckabee’s “Club for Greed” comment suggests a swipe at the legacy of “Reagonomics,” his proposal follows supply-side economic theory, just like every other major Republican candidate.
This is why Scherer’s refers to Huckabee’s populist appeals as merely “rhetoric,” and why, in the essay from The Revealer that I originally discussed last week, Jeff Sharlet finds that “Huckabee sounds like William Jennings Bryan, the Great Commoner” (emphasis mine). It is one thing to note that Huckabee has established minor differences from Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain; it is quite another to claim those differences as populist, especially in relation to Bryan. Scherer and Sharlet have done their homework; it’s up to the rest of the media to follow suit.
The Huckabee-William Jennings Bryan comparison has reappeared elsewhere within media coverage of Huckbee’s campaign as a means of describing his populist message. Does this mean that he really does bear a modern-day resemblance to Bryan? Relying on Michael Kazin’s fantastic biography of Bryan, it’s possible to discern some similarities between the two. On the campaign trail, Huckabee relies on consistent appeals to lower- and middle-class demographics, just as Bryan sought “middling Americans” to form the core of his supporters (196). Bryan would certainly appreciate Huckabee’s reference to the Club for Growth as the “Club for Greed,” though the former was more frequently aggressive in attacking corporations and big business. Bryan also sold his arguments well because his speechmaking talents were stunning; Huckabee doesn’t even measure up to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in this regard, but he is, nonetheless, quite good at presenting himself in a folksy manner, which has been critical to his success so far. Finally, Bryan actively sought to apply his evangelical Christianity—largely based upon the Social Gospel—to the public square. Likewise, Huckabee stated in a recent interview with Beliefnet that “the application of Christian principles in government ought to bring a greater sense of justice,” indicating how his own (more conservative) evangelicalism influences his public policy.
When it comes to economic populism, however, the similarities quickly cease. Bryan’s economic proposals were remarkably progressive by both the standards of his era and of the present day. He called for a federal bank insurance program nearly four decades before Franklin Roosevelt made the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation part of his New Deal reforms. At the 1896 Democratic national convention in Chicago, Bryan’s support for “free silver” led him to help create a party platform that “thoroughly repudiated” the more conservative economic policies of then-President (and fellow Democrat) Grover Cleveland; this marked a transition toward the modern liberal movement (55-56). In his concern for utility regulation, he called for public ownership of the railroads during the first decade of the 1900s, though many Democrats disagreed with him. And as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson from 1913-1915, he engineered legislation that created the progressive federal income tax.
In comparison, it is impossible to honestly refer to Huckabee as a modern-day economic populist. Ernest Dumas of the Arkansas Times (which has extensively covered Huckabee’s governorship) provides the central reason why in an analysis of Huckabee’s “FairTax” proposal. In short, FairTax is a wildly regressive plan that would not only disproportionately favor the richest Americans, it would also fail to generate the type of revenue necessary for even the basic functions of federal government. Additionally, as Dumas notes in a separate piece, “nothing in his [Huckabee’s] political past showed any particular sympathy for labor,” and he supports the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts. Yet it is FairTax that is most striking, because although Huckabee’s “Club for Greed” comment suggests a swipe at the legacy of “Reagonomics,” his proposal follows supply-side economic theory, just like every other major Republican candidate.
This is why Scherer’s refers to Huckabee’s populist appeals as merely “rhetoric,” and why, in the essay from The Revealer that I originally discussed last week, Jeff Sharlet finds that “Huckabee sounds like William Jennings Bryan, the Great Commoner” (emphasis mine). It is one thing to note that Huckabee has established minor differences from Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain; it is quite another to claim those differences as populist, especially in relation to Bryan. Scherer and Sharlet have done their homework; it’s up to the rest of the media to follow suit.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Commons: The Library of Congress Pilot Project
The Library of Congress has partnered with Flickr to make photos available to the public for comment and description. The Commons is the name of the area where the photos will be stored. Over 3000 photos are currently available for tagging.
According to the website, “the key goals of this pilot project are to firstly give users a taste of the hidden treasures in the huge Library of Congress collection, and secondly to show how your input of a tag or two can make the collection even richer.” Currently two collections of photos are available: 1930s-40s in Color and News in the 1910s.
Initially, I think that this is a brilliant idea. As the old saying goes, “many hands make light work.” By making the photos available to Flickr users, the Library of Congress may gain valuable information about the collections for the benefit of researchers. However, I’m curious about how Flickr and the Library of Congress are going to prevent improper or erroneous tags. As we all know, the Internet is full of information; unfortunately, not all of it is reliable. I suspect that the Library of Congress is still going to have a fairly big job of verifying any tagging before it can make it an official part of the collection.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
FDA Requires Drug Companies to Include Suicide Assessment in Studies
According to the New York Times today, the FDA has recently implemented “one of the most profound changes of the past 16 years to regulations governing drug development.” This change requires that manufactures of certain drugs include an assessment of suicide risks in their clinical studies.
Such assessments will be required specifically for drugs intended to treat obesity, urinary incontinence, epilepsy, smoking cessation, and depression. The FDA had sent letters, apparently months ago, to drug companies such as Merck, Eli Lilly and Sanofi-Aventis; all three of these drug companies have reportedly complied with the requirements and are now including suicide assessments in their clinical trials.
The regulation change reportedly is due to findings that antidepressants may increase thoughts of suicide in children and teenagers. After this initial finding, it was also discovered when reviewing an application for an obesity drug that the proposed drug may pose some psychiatric problems. Similar findings were discovered in at least one additional obesity drug; with such findings, worries grew regarding other drugs that may affect a person psychologically.
Advertisements for many antidepressants often list the risk of increased suicidal thoughts as a potential side effect. The fact that antidepressants are targeted at correcting a chemical imbalance in a person’s brain would seem to create worries of how the overall medicine will affect the user. However, it is hard to imagine that somebody taking obesity medication would think that similar affects would be possible. Also, the article lists other medications that one, at least I, would not think could cause potential psychological problems – such drugs include medicine for: acne; hypertension; high cholesterol; swelling; heartburn; pain; bacterial infections; and, insomnia.
The FDA has apparently approved the continued sale of many of these drugs as they have found that the benefits of the drugs outweigh the potential harm. It is understood that there is a risk of potentially harmful side effects with almost any medication. However, it is important for doctors, and especially patients, to understand that taking something that may seem innocent – such as acne medication – may cause the person, however slight the risk, to have increased suicidal thoughts. In order for patients to know this, doctors must be informed. Such information in the end must come from the FDA, who relies on clinical studies run by drug companies to determine these potential adverse side effects. As such, this new regulation by the FDA to require the consideration of increased suicidal tendencies as a side effect is one that will seem to provide necessary information to all persons involved and help to ensure that people are adequately prepared to deal with such potential side effects.
Such assessments will be required specifically for drugs intended to treat obesity, urinary incontinence, epilepsy, smoking cessation, and depression. The FDA had sent letters, apparently months ago, to drug companies such as Merck, Eli Lilly and Sanofi-Aventis; all three of these drug companies have reportedly complied with the requirements and are now including suicide assessments in their clinical trials.
The regulation change reportedly is due to findings that antidepressants may increase thoughts of suicide in children and teenagers. After this initial finding, it was also discovered when reviewing an application for an obesity drug that the proposed drug may pose some psychiatric problems. Similar findings were discovered in at least one additional obesity drug; with such findings, worries grew regarding other drugs that may affect a person psychologically.
Advertisements for many antidepressants often list the risk of increased suicidal thoughts as a potential side effect. The fact that antidepressants are targeted at correcting a chemical imbalance in a person’s brain would seem to create worries of how the overall medicine will affect the user. However, it is hard to imagine that somebody taking obesity medication would think that similar affects would be possible. Also, the article lists other medications that one, at least I, would not think could cause potential psychological problems – such drugs include medicine for: acne; hypertension; high cholesterol; swelling; heartburn; pain; bacterial infections; and, insomnia.
The FDA has apparently approved the continued sale of many of these drugs as they have found that the benefits of the drugs outweigh the potential harm. It is understood that there is a risk of potentially harmful side effects with almost any medication. However, it is important for doctors, and especially patients, to understand that taking something that may seem innocent – such as acne medication – may cause the person, however slight the risk, to have increased suicidal thoughts. In order for patients to know this, doctors must be informed. Such information in the end must come from the FDA, who relies on clinical studies run by drug companies to determine these potential adverse side effects. As such, this new regulation by the FDA to require the consideration of increased suicidal tendencies as a side effect is one that will seem to provide necessary information to all persons involved and help to ensure that people are adequately prepared to deal with such potential side effects.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
In Brief: MLK, Bobby Fischer, and China
--First, three Martin Luther King, Jr. Day pieces that I found particularly relevant:
1) As Paul mentioned in his post on Monday, AP reporter Deepti Hajela’s article on King’s forgotten legacy reminds us of an absolutely critical point: in the last forty years, America has created a historical memory of King that is comfortable to our sensibilities, but avoids the complexity of actual truth. Hajela also relies on strong sources (particularly Melissa Harris-Lacewell). And although the article is brief…
2) …historian Ari Kelman’s blog essay fills in the blanks. Kelman is pitch-perfect throughout: the fact that King’s criticisms and vision in his speech “The Other America” was neither “moderate” nor “safe”; Ronald Reagan’s failure to support the legislation on the King holiday until faced with a certain veto override (part of his troubling political strategy with regard to race); the “painful irony that corporate sponsorship proved key in passing the law marking his birthday”; and even the momentum of Public Enemy’s “By the Time I Get to Arizona,” which sparked a fairly significant controversy at the time. Just a fantastic piece of writing that challenges how we should think about King.
3) Finally, Pam Spaulding of the blog Pandagon links to clips of two Vietnam-related King speeches. Compare “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam” to “I Have a Dream,” and consider theologian James Cone’s argument in Martin and Malcolm and America: “His outspoken opposition to the war in Vietnam…isolated him from many former supporters [including Lyndon Johnson]. Amid much controversy and criticism, Martin held fast to his convictions and refused to compromise his fierce opposition to evil in high places” (306-307).
--It’s probably not coincidental that when you type “Bobby Fischer” into both Google and Yahoo!, Rene Chun’s 2002 essay “Bobby Fischer’s Pathetic Endgame” appears eighth and fourth, respectively, in the search results. In the wake of Fischer’s recent death, media coverage has rightly focused on both Fischer’s incredible brilliance as a chess player and the sad, unhinged behavior and anti-Semitism that consumed much of his adult life. Yet Chun is able to capture the incredible cost of “Fischer's paranoia, rage, and hubris”:
“[T]hey have been enough to transform him into an enemy of the state; they have been enough to sabotage a brilliant career and turn a confident, charismatic figure into a dithering recluse; and, sadly, they have been enough to make us forget that when Bobby Fischer played chess, it was absolutely riveting theater, even for those who didn't play the game.”
This is why even though the Atlantic published it over five years ago, the essay is as fitting a summary of the former world champion’s life than anything from the last several days.
--With less than eight months to go before the Summer Olympics, the current trial of Lü Gengsong, a Chinese dissident writer facing charges of “inciting subversion of state power,” is another example of how human rights conditions in China have yet to significantly improve. Of note besides Benjamin Kang’s summary of the trial is mention of the organization Human Rights in China (HRIC), a group with which I was previously unfamiliar. HRIC is currently hosting a separate website, Incorporating Responsibility 2008, which will feature a specific Chinese political prisoner every month this year as a means of accountability.
1) As Paul mentioned in his post on Monday, AP reporter Deepti Hajela’s article on King’s forgotten legacy reminds us of an absolutely critical point: in the last forty years, America has created a historical memory of King that is comfortable to our sensibilities, but avoids the complexity of actual truth. Hajela also relies on strong sources (particularly Melissa Harris-Lacewell). And although the article is brief…
2) …historian Ari Kelman’s blog essay fills in the blanks. Kelman is pitch-perfect throughout: the fact that King’s criticisms and vision in his speech “The Other America” was neither “moderate” nor “safe”; Ronald Reagan’s failure to support the legislation on the King holiday until faced with a certain veto override (part of his troubling political strategy with regard to race); the “painful irony that corporate sponsorship proved key in passing the law marking his birthday”; and even the momentum of Public Enemy’s “By the Time I Get to Arizona,” which sparked a fairly significant controversy at the time. Just a fantastic piece of writing that challenges how we should think about King.
3) Finally, Pam Spaulding of the blog Pandagon links to clips of two Vietnam-related King speeches. Compare “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam” to “I Have a Dream,” and consider theologian James Cone’s argument in Martin and Malcolm and America: “His outspoken opposition to the war in Vietnam…isolated him from many former supporters [including Lyndon Johnson]. Amid much controversy and criticism, Martin held fast to his convictions and refused to compromise his fierce opposition to evil in high places” (306-307).
--It’s probably not coincidental that when you type “Bobby Fischer” into both Google and Yahoo!, Rene Chun’s 2002 essay “Bobby Fischer’s Pathetic Endgame” appears eighth and fourth, respectively, in the search results. In the wake of Fischer’s recent death, media coverage has rightly focused on both Fischer’s incredible brilliance as a chess player and the sad, unhinged behavior and anti-Semitism that consumed much of his adult life. Yet Chun is able to capture the incredible cost of “Fischer's paranoia, rage, and hubris”:
“[T]hey have been enough to transform him into an enemy of the state; they have been enough to sabotage a brilliant career and turn a confident, charismatic figure into a dithering recluse; and, sadly, they have been enough to make us forget that when Bobby Fischer played chess, it was absolutely riveting theater, even for those who didn't play the game.”
This is why even though the Atlantic published it over five years ago, the essay is as fitting a summary of the former world champion’s life than anything from the last several days.
--With less than eight months to go before the Summer Olympics, the current trial of Lü Gengsong, a Chinese dissident writer facing charges of “inciting subversion of state power,” is another example of how human rights conditions in China have yet to significantly improve. Of note besides Benjamin Kang’s summary of the trial is mention of the organization Human Rights in China (HRIC), a group with which I was previously unfamiliar. HRIC is currently hosting a separate website, Incorporating Responsibility 2008, which will feature a specific Chinese political prisoner every month this year as a means of accountability.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Today being Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, celebrations of Dr. King’s life and message are being held throughout the United States. For some today is merely a holiday where many businesses and government offices are closed; for many, it is a day to remember a man who strived for equality and peace among all races everywhere. Still, questions remain today as to the progress we have made towards these goals and the lasting impact of Dr. King’s words.
For many, Dr. King is best remembered for his “I have a dream” speech, setting forth a vision of equality and peace for all. According to historians however, many Americans only know “that this guy had a dream” without actually “know[ing] what that dream was.” For some, Dr. King’s speech was all about equality among races, forgetting the fact that he was also attempting to combat poverty and bring anti-war issues to the forefront of people’s minds.
Today, approximately forty years after his death, the messages of Dr. King remain valid concerns and unfulfilled dreams. As for equality among races, one of Dr. King’s dreams was to have an African American be elected President – a dream that could be answered in the form of Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Still, according to CBS News, “blacks in America are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the poor, in the prison population, in single-parent families.” Such disproportionate representation signifies that the equality Dr. King dreamt of has not yet been achieved.
As for Dr. King’s message of peace, it surely seems that there is work to be done. As the nation continues its war in the Middle East, the statistics on crime within the country are disconcerting.
It is good today to remember Dr. King’s messages and think about equality and peace. However, if a majority of people only think about these issues once a year, it is unlikely that anything will be resolved. There are hardworking people in all walks of life of all races that in fact attack these issues on a regular basis in an attempt to find a potential solution. However without more constant support by others, including those in the government, their job will be made more arduous than it perhaps needs to be.
For many, Dr. King is best remembered for his “I have a dream” speech, setting forth a vision of equality and peace for all. According to historians however, many Americans only know “that this guy had a dream” without actually “know[ing] what that dream was.” For some, Dr. King’s speech was all about equality among races, forgetting the fact that he was also attempting to combat poverty and bring anti-war issues to the forefront of people’s minds.
Today, approximately forty years after his death, the messages of Dr. King remain valid concerns and unfulfilled dreams. As for equality among races, one of Dr. King’s dreams was to have an African American be elected President – a dream that could be answered in the form of Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Still, according to CBS News, “blacks in America are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the poor, in the prison population, in single-parent families.” Such disproportionate representation signifies that the equality Dr. King dreamt of has not yet been achieved.
As for Dr. King’s message of peace, it surely seems that there is work to be done. As the nation continues its war in the Middle East, the statistics on crime within the country are disconcerting.
It is good today to remember Dr. King’s messages and think about equality and peace. However, if a majority of people only think about these issues once a year, it is unlikely that anything will be resolved. There are hardworking people in all walks of life of all races that in fact attack these issues on a regular basis in an attempt to find a potential solution. However without more constant support by others, including those in the government, their job will be made more arduous than it perhaps needs to be.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
How Major Music Labels Continue to Shoot Themselves in the Foot
Over at PopMatters, Jason Gross (who runs the site’s Crazed by the Music blog) has recently posted his annual “Best Must Scribing Awards” feature, which also includes sections focusing on poor music journalism and strong articles that indirectly relate to the music business. Gross is a sharp, thoughtful evaluator of his peers (as well as a talented critic himself), and he has done an excellent job of highlighting the steady decline of the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the major-label music industry. Combing through Best Music Scribing Awards and newer entries in Crazed by the Music, I found him mentioning three articles that particularly indicate how major music labels are approaching a bleak future:
--From a Crazed by the Music entry a couple of months ago: The Independent (UK) uncovers how the major label EMI wasted obscene amounts of money on…flowers. And empty houses. In some ways, what Emily Dugan documents isn’t terribly surprising—as major-label music into an extremely lucrative business in the early 1970s, lavish indulgence within the industry became a given. What I find a bit unnerving are the rough parallels between EMI and, say, Enron (minus the threat of indictment). Lower-level EMI employees are facing the ax and will likely struggle to find similar work elsewhere; even if they’re part of a corrupt system, they’re still not nearly as guilty of profligate spending as top-level executives, who will more than likely have enough in their bank accounts to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the RIAA will excuse the irresponsibility of the latter group by shifting the blame elsewhere.
--Fro the “Superior Scribing” section of “Best Music Scribing Awards”: Further evidence of shifting the blame elsewhere.
--From the “Quality Scribing” section of “Best Music Scribing Awards”: Michael Geist, a lawyer who specializes in technology law issues, demonstrates that—contrary to the RIAA’s claim that peer-to-peer (P2P) downloading is the primary cause of declining CD sales—P2P downloaders actually purchase more music. While there have been other studies that have denied a correlation between downloading and the fall-off in CD purchases, Geist writes that a “new study commissioned by Industry Canada” is arguably “the first ever empirical study to employ representative microeconomic data.” The key statistic is the study’s estimate that among a survey of over 2,000 Canadians, “12 additional P2P downloads per month increases music purchasing by 0.44 CDs per year.” It would be helpful to see a similar study for the U.S. and a few other countries for comparative purposes, but as Geist rightly points out, “it becomes increasingly clear that the industry has benefited from P2P and that there is no "emergency" that necessitates legislative intervention” (emphasis mine).
--Finally, from the “Other Arts” section of “Best Music Scribing Awards”: Even if P2P downloading doesn’t actually threaten CD sales, there is still the rather thorny question of its implications with regard to intellectual-property law. Daniel B. Smith’s article offers an unconventional response from legal scholar Christopher Sprigman: take cues from how artists in other artistic fields—culinary arts, stand-up comedy, and magic—have learned to foster creativity without relying on legal action. His implication is that within the context of a creative “free market” (read: no legal interference), musicians can learn to adapt to and police P2P downloading in a manner that will actually stimulate their art and increase their revenue. I have to admit that I’m a bit skeptical, but it’s an interesting idea, and Sprigman is correct to assert the music industry’s need for adaptation in this area.
--From a Crazed by the Music entry a couple of months ago: The Independent (UK) uncovers how the major label EMI wasted obscene amounts of money on…flowers. And empty houses. In some ways, what Emily Dugan documents isn’t terribly surprising—as major-label music into an extremely lucrative business in the early 1970s, lavish indulgence within the industry became a given. What I find a bit unnerving are the rough parallels between EMI and, say, Enron (minus the threat of indictment). Lower-level EMI employees are facing the ax and will likely struggle to find similar work elsewhere; even if they’re part of a corrupt system, they’re still not nearly as guilty of profligate spending as top-level executives, who will more than likely have enough in their bank accounts to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the RIAA will excuse the irresponsibility of the latter group by shifting the blame elsewhere.
--Fro the “Superior Scribing” section of “Best Music Scribing Awards”: Further evidence of shifting the blame elsewhere.
--From the “Quality Scribing” section of “Best Music Scribing Awards”: Michael Geist, a lawyer who specializes in technology law issues, demonstrates that—contrary to the RIAA’s claim that peer-to-peer (P2P) downloading is the primary cause of declining CD sales—P2P downloaders actually purchase more music. While there have been other studies that have denied a correlation between downloading and the fall-off in CD purchases, Geist writes that a “new study commissioned by Industry Canada” is arguably “the first ever empirical study to employ representative microeconomic data.” The key statistic is the study’s estimate that among a survey of over 2,000 Canadians, “12 additional P2P downloads per month increases music purchasing by 0.44 CDs per year.” It would be helpful to see a similar study for the U.S. and a few other countries for comparative purposes, but as Geist rightly points out, “it becomes increasingly clear that the industry has benefited from P2P and that there is no "emergency" that necessitates legislative intervention” (emphasis mine).
--Finally, from the “Other Arts” section of “Best Music Scribing Awards”: Even if P2P downloading doesn’t actually threaten CD sales, there is still the rather thorny question of its implications with regard to intellectual-property law. Daniel B. Smith’s article offers an unconventional response from legal scholar Christopher Sprigman: take cues from how artists in other artistic fields—culinary arts, stand-up comedy, and magic—have learned to foster creativity without relying on legal action. His implication is that within the context of a creative “free market” (read: no legal interference), musicians can learn to adapt to and police P2P downloading in a manner that will actually stimulate their art and increase their revenue. I have to admit that I’m a bit skeptical, but it’s an interesting idea, and Sprigman is correct to assert the music industry’s need for adaptation in this area.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Lincoln Inauguration photos found at Library of Congress
On Wednesday, the Library of Congress (LOC) announced that three photographic negatives that had been labeled as being either the Grand Review of the Armies or the inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant were in fact of the crowd that gathered at the U.S. Capitol for President Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1865.
Carol Marie Johnson, a curator of photography at the Library of Congress was prompted to examine the negatives after a LOC patron alerted her to the fact that these visually similar photos had radically different identifications in the Library's online Civil War photographic negative collection.
Johnson discovered the misidentification on Friday, January 4th while checking old logbooks and finding an annotation “
“These negatives add to our knowledge of this special event,” said Johnson. “They show what that wet Saturday looked like with the massing of the crowd. They also convey the excitement of the people.”The LOC Prints and Photographs Division has updated the catalog records.
To view the full set of photos, visit the Prints and Photographs Reading Room. Here are the photo links:
- Soldiers and crowd
- Soldiers lining up
- Soldiers lined up
- People arriving (previously known image used for comparison)
I can only imagine how excited Johnson must have felt when she uncovered the labeling error. I think that it’s pretty cool. This is a perfect example of a web savvy user and a receptive curator who unearthed on a great discovery.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Unpublished Drug Studies
In this morning’s New York Times, there is an interesting report on the publication of results from drug companies seeking FDA approval of antidepressant drugs. According to the article, drug companies are becoming very selective when presenting reports to the FDA in order to increase the apparent success of their drugs and ensure that these drugs may be placed on the market in the quickest time possible.
According to the article, the reports presented to the FDA suggest that “about 60 percent of people taking the drugs report significant relief from depression, compared with roughly 40 percent of those on placebo pills.” However, when looking at reports not presented to the FDA, the difference in results between placebos and the drug are not as significant. In order to skew results and gain approval, drug companies apparently report approximately 94% of positive studies, while only reporting 14% of tests results that do not substantially evidence the effectiveness of the drug.
While the report mentioned in the article discusses solely antidepressants, there apparently is similar concern about other tests for other drugs being represented in a similar manner; unfortunately, more thorough studies have yet to be run on these other drugs. With this report on antidepressants, it is expected (and hoped) that the manner in which drug tests are presented comes under greater scrutiny.
It is unfortunate that pharmaceutical companies apparently have skewed their test results in order to expedite the marketing of potentially ineffective drugs in order to turn a profit. While we do live in a capitalist society, where motivation is derived from earning such a profit, companies that have dedicated themselves to providing effective medicines and drugs would seem to have greater responsibilities to their consumers and should ensure that they meet these responsibilities in an appropriate manner.
Many people count on such antidepressants for several psychological and personality disorders. Without proper presentation of results, it is unknown if these people are actually obtaining the treatment they require. Outside of this specific report, concerns have already been raised regarding the presentation of study results for other drugs; if incomplete results are presented to the FDA for any drug, a proper evaluation by the FDA, doctors and patients cannot be made in order to ensure that the proper drug is prescribed for the disorder/illness. Unless pharmaceutical companies present all, or at least a more representative sample of, their results from studies, many people may not be receiving the best treatment available for their specific illness/disorder.
According to the article, the reports presented to the FDA suggest that “about 60 percent of people taking the drugs report significant relief from depression, compared with roughly 40 percent of those on placebo pills.” However, when looking at reports not presented to the FDA, the difference in results between placebos and the drug are not as significant. In order to skew results and gain approval, drug companies apparently report approximately 94% of positive studies, while only reporting 14% of tests results that do not substantially evidence the effectiveness of the drug.
While the report mentioned in the article discusses solely antidepressants, there apparently is similar concern about other tests for other drugs being represented in a similar manner; unfortunately, more thorough studies have yet to be run on these other drugs. With this report on antidepressants, it is expected (and hoped) that the manner in which drug tests are presented comes under greater scrutiny.
It is unfortunate that pharmaceutical companies apparently have skewed their test results in order to expedite the marketing of potentially ineffective drugs in order to turn a profit. While we do live in a capitalist society, where motivation is derived from earning such a profit, companies that have dedicated themselves to providing effective medicines and drugs would seem to have greater responsibilities to their consumers and should ensure that they meet these responsibilities in an appropriate manner.
Many people count on such antidepressants for several psychological and personality disorders. Without proper presentation of results, it is unknown if these people are actually obtaining the treatment they require. Outside of this specific report, concerns have already been raised regarding the presentation of study results for other drugs; if incomplete results are presented to the FDA for any drug, a proper evaluation by the FDA, doctors and patients cannot be made in order to ensure that the proper drug is prescribed for the disorder/illness. Unless pharmaceutical companies present all, or at least a more representative sample of, their results from studies, many people may not be receiving the best treatment available for their specific illness/disorder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
