Benlog

The Guardian in Britain asked its readers to send anti-Bush letters to voters in swing states in the US.

Now, I’m obviously pro-Kerry, and I obviously want to see more transatlantic cooperation, but that’s just stupid and superbly miscalculated. I can only imagine the British’s reactions if Americans were to do the same thing by writing letters supporting Tony Blair. British citizens would clearly find it an appalling invasion of their political process.

Not to mention that the result is probably counter-productive.

Ron Suskind’s latest article in the New York Times Magazine is a must-read.

”Where people often get lost is on this very point. […] Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not — not ever — to the thing we as humans so very much want.”

And what is that?

”Easy certainty.”

(thanks to Jon for the pointer)

Disney obtained a copyright on Mickey Mouse in 1928, giving them sole control over Mickey Mouse stories and representation: you can’t write your own Mickey Mouse story, make and sell a Mickey Mouse sticker or stuffed animal without authorization from Disney. In 1998, with only 5 years left in Mickey’s copyright, Disney lobbied Congress for CTEA – the Copyright Term Extension Act, which retroactively extended copyright by 20 years. Thus, Mickey is locked up until 2023, and Disney can continue to cash in. Expect another lobbying effort around 2020.

A number of people (including me) believe this retroactive extension of copyright is bogus. But right now, it’s the law, and what’s good for the Mouse is good for Peter Pan, right?

Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital in England owns the copyright to Peter Pan since 1929. Regardless, it appears one of Disney’s subsidiaries recently published a Peter Pan prequel without permission from Great Ormond Street Hospital. Disney’s justification? The copyright on Peter Pan has run out.

Really? But Peter Pan was copyrighted in 1929, one year after Mickey. So what’s the deal? Retroactive copyright extensions are okay for large corporations, but not okay for a hospital? You’d think if Disney really wanted the world to respect extended copyright, they’d lead by example.

(thanks to Danny from Lessig’s Granny D Guest Blog)

In an interview following the first Presidential Debate last week, General Wesley Clark said that Bush followed multilateral negotiations with North Korea because “bilateral talks would have been too much like Clinton.” That got me thinking: what else is Bush doing just to make sure he’s different from Clinton?

The list is pretty long. As soon as Bush took office, the US completely disengaged from the Middle East peace process, a cornerstone of Clinton’s foreign policy in his last few years as President. If you believe the numerous reports and the Richard Clarke book, it’s also clear that Bush took the focus off terrorism when he took office. Of course, after 9/11, that changed, but between Jan. 20 and Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was focusing on missile defense and simply didn’t follow up on the Osama threat.

So in fact, if you’re wondering why the Bush administration is going to vociferously refuse the latest CIA report that Iraq hasn’t had WMDs since 1991, wonder no more. Accepting the report would mean accepting that Clinton’s containment policy in Iraq worked. Sure, Saddam made a few grandiose statements, but, in reality, the threat he posed was truly contained. Accepting the CIA report doesn’t simply mean that the Iraq War was unjustified, it means that Clinton was doing the right thing.

And for an administration that’s always wanted to be different from Clinton, just because they feel they need to be, that’s not an easy report to swallow.

Slate’s latest is a must read.

The first Presidential debate has forced us to start talking about the issues of accountability, reality-based decision making, and generally how the US needs to be a better world citizen for its own good. It’s about time.

It’s difficult to get people to vote, especially young people. The folks at Votergasm have figured out a way to provide significant motivation. Go Vote, then attend a Votergasm party where you will surely meet someone who’s signed the Votergasm Patriot Pledge to have sex with a voter on Election Night.

Who said election research was boring?

While most of the press is focused on the paper trail vs. no paper trail conflict, here are the really interesting issues to think about for 2004:

• Absentee Voting: the New York Times is picking up on this. In a misguided attempt to boycott controversial electronic voting machines, there’s a campaign of sorts to convince people to vote absentee. This is a terrible idea, because absentee voting in its current form completely defeats the secret ballot principle. A surge in absentee voting could lead to a frightening opportunity for significant fraud.
• Colorado and Proportional Electoral Votes: Colorado’s electoral votes might be split proportionally instead of winner-takes-all. This could signal the beginning of a significant change in the electoral vote system. If only a few states do this, the electoral vote results could skew even further away from the popular vote than in 2000. If all states do it, the results will be closer to the popular vote. It’s an interesting dilemma.
• Registration: the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project said it a few years ago, and it’s still true: the biggest election problem is the voter list. How we maintain it, how we purge it, etc… Chances are, the 2004 elections won’t be very different: many voters will be disenfranchised simply because of voter list management.

I suspect the 2004 elections will be problematic because the technology and policy are changing so rapidly. There’s one important thing each one of us can do to help mitigate problems: sign up to be a poll worker. Practically every precinct needs poll workers, especially poll workers who understand how to put in place a strict process like voting, and especially technically qualified poll workers in precinct with new equipment. Take one day out of your schedule this year and help democracy, no matter what your party affiliation might be.

Bush and his team claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and thus that Saddam threatened the US. That was a lie, as we know now. But that’s okay, says the Right, because Saddam was a really bad guy, and we needed to get rid of him. So the lie about the WMDs, not a big deal. The end is what matters: we needed Saddam out, and anything needed to get there – including lying – is okay.

Meanwhile, documents have surfaced claiming Bush got significant preferential treatment during the Vietnam War when he was assigned to the National Guard, then shirked his duties as a National Guardsman. “One Big Lie!” says the Right wing. Well, actually, that’s not quite what they’re saying. They’re saying the documents are fake, and they’re going on and on about the details of how fake these documents are. Interestingly enough, they’re not denying the actual claims, only a small subset of the documents.

So, let’s think about this one. In the first case, we should ignore the lie and focus on the claim – even though the claim amounts to little given the lie. In the second case, we should ignore the claim and focus on the lie – even though the supposedly-fake documents are not the only proof of this claim.

Yep, that’s consistent. The Ends Justify The Means, as long the ends are, you know, stamped with the Bush seal of approval.

When backed into a corner and forced to apologize, a less-than-enthusiastic person will often say something like “I’m Sorry Only If You’re Sorry.” You’ve seen these non-apology apologies before. An 8 year-old might say “well, I’m sorry I hit my baby sister only if she’s sorry for calling me names.”

You’ve also heard it from various actors in the Middle East: after a particularly bloody attack by one side or the other, a politican with the attacking side will say “We deplore all acts of violence against civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian.” It’s not an actual apology, it’s more like saying “yeah, it was uncool of us, but you got what you deserved.”

Today, George W. Bush did exactly that. Instead of decrying the specific attacks by The Swift Boat Veterans, he called for “an end to all attack ads” and called on John Kerry to do the same. Effectively, “I’m sorry only if you are.” Never mind the fact that it is very well documented (here and here and in official military records) that the Swift Boat Veterans are lying. Never mind that Kerry has specifically and unequivocably denounced the MoveOn ad that attacks Bush for his alleged failure to fulfill his national guard duties.

In my view, a strong individual is one who realizes his mistakes, apologizes for them appropriately, and does his best to ensure he never makes the same mistake again. We’ve known for a while that Bush is unable to admit being wrong (like, say, concerning Iraq’s WMD program). This is just another example of how weak he truly is. Our president behaves like an 8 year-old who knows he’s wrong but can’t apologize.

Zach Braff, writer, director, and lead actor of Garden State, my new favorite movie, tells us more about R ratings in movies:

Just so you all know, your government doesn’t believe a 16 year old should hear the word “fuck” more than twice in a 2 hour period. The second you say “fuck” twice in a movie your film becomes “R”. No exceptions. Pretty crazy, huh? You can blow someone’s head off, but 2 fucks makes you unwatchable for someone under 17. Unless they have their parent there to explain it to them. “Mom, I understood the first use of the word fuck, but what’s with the second – give me guidance please. I’ve heard one fuck before, but ever since I heard the second one I’ve had this insatiable desire to rob a liquor store and refer to all women as “ho’s”.

More and more, our society rejects common sense and instead relies on inflexible rules. 2 “fucks” and your movie is R-rated. Minimum sentencing for crimes (3 strikes, you’re out). DMCA-style laws where judges’ hands are tied and the crime is automatic, regardless of intent.

I understand the somewhat justifiable motivations. Standardizing the R ratings might help parents make quick judgments that are “objective.” Minimum sentencing supposedly ensures fairness. And the DMCA… well, I’m still trying to figure out the benefit there.

Sure, a model of the world where simple actions result in simple consequences thanks to simple rules is comforting. Unfortunately, the world isn’t that simple, and such a blunt model is grossly incorrect.