Legal Fiction

Most people are at least familiar with Stephen Colbert's name, even if you've never watched a single episode of The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. That's probably because the man is a self promotional machine. For example, back in 2009 NASA did a poll to decide on a name for the newest node added to the ISS (International Space Station). Colbert exhorted his viewers to vote and ultimately he actually topped the list. NASA did, ultimately choose to name it 'Tranquility' but Colbert still got his name in space. NASA named the treadmill that would be housed in that node after him. Well, to be accurate they named it the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill, or COLBERT. In his typical deadpan, Colbert responded that:

"I think a treadmill is better than a node ... because the node is just a box for the treadmill. Nobody says, 'Hey, my mom bought me a Nike box.' They want the shoes that are inside."

While it may seem frivolous on the surface, the incident did draw more attention to the often forgotten ISS and NASA in general. And ultimately I think that's what he wanted all along. Celebrities have long used their popular reach to raise awareness of a cause, Colbert just does it with his own unique, over the top, faux conservative flair.

This election season, Colbert is using the same sort of technique to draw attention to something that is far more important to our democracy, campaign finance. Specifically the practical results of the Supreme Court's so called 'Citizen's United' decision. Over the last year, Colbert has, in the guise of his uber-Conservative on-screen persona, laid bare the real world implications of that decision. It began with his declaration that he would be forming his own 'Super PAC,' a political action committee that is allowed to raise unlimited donations from any individual, group or business. While Super PACs are required to disclose donors, like regular PACs, they can usually take advantage of technicalities to delay disclosure far longer and sometimes even until after the election itself, thus making the disclosure more academic than enlightening. In successive episodes throughout the year Colbert went through the process, always doing so with his lawyer, Trevor Potter, on hand to show that there was a serious legal footing to the segment. As Potter said in an interview with NPR in September 2011,

"It's not a joke. Because, as he has put it, he wanted to bring people in behind the curtain so they could see [how superPACs] actually worked and what they actually did."

He certainly does that. To watch these segments is to see the threadbare legal fiction that has been created to allow cash to pour into our political system with minimal oversight. Literally, it requires only a few sheets of paper to be signed in order to 'upgrade' a regular PAC, which operates under more restrictive rules, to be a Super PAC. From what I can tell, it takes more effort and paperwork to setup a one man, home business than it does to setup a Super PAC that can collect and administer donations into the tens of millions of dollars. And the home business probably requires more oversight!

One of the other fictions at work here is that a candidate cannot directly coordinate with a Super PAC. The operative word here is 'directly,' as most of the current gang of Super PACs are actually being run by close associates and, in many cases, former senior campaign staffers! Not a lot of separation there, thus making the Super PAC, functionally, just an extension of the candidate's formal campaign apparatus. Colbert pointed this out in a recent episode, with his usual comedic twist. During a very brief 'campaign' to run for President of the United States of South Carolina, he transferred control of his SuperPAC to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. A few days later he spoke to his audience about not being able to directly coordinate with Stewart about the Super PAC's activities and then proceeded to openly ponder what Stewart might do with all that Super PAC money. Indirectly mocking Newt Gingrich's earlier press conference where he 'called on' the Super PAC supporting his campaign to not run a particular ad in its current form. This is apparently not coordinating. It seems that as long as the campaign staff doesn't meet with Super PAC representatives or call them up directly, you can coordinate via the media to your heart's content. Thus this so called restriction is merely a minor inconvenience rather than an actual impediment.

There are a lot of things we need in our electoral system, but more money sure isn't one of them. What benefit does our Republic actually gain from hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations? Does it ensure just and fair elections? Does it give us candidates who are more dedicated to serving the people? Does it help provide us with unbiased facts on, not just what the candidates say they stand for, but what they've actually done? Does it make elected officials more trustworthy? That would be a 'No' on all accounts. What it does accomplish is to ensure our elected politicians feel indebted to those who flooded their campaigns with cash and not the rule of law or service to their constituents.  It allows the candidates to overwhelm the voters with a flood of propaganda that neither informs nor educates them, but simply hammers them with repetitious soundbites and wild hyperbole. It all but guarantees that, if elected and faced with a choice between safeguarding their constituents or smoothing the way for a lavish donor, that the voter will almost always lose. There is no doubt that money is one of the greatest corrupting forces in this world and the one place we do NOT need more corruption is our government! There's a saying 'that everyone has their price' and as long as we allow private money to run rampant in our electoral system we will ensure that politicians are consistently able to achieve their particular asking price.

Overkill

To hear organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and various software companies tell it, they are losing untold billions of dollars to digital piracy. This is, in the words of a certain MSNBC personality, bull-pucky.

Let's look at the numbers being tossed about on this. The MPAA touts on their website a study by The Institute for Policy Innovation. I poked around their site and found a movie industry report that claimed "U.S. movie companies lost $6.1 billion in 2005 to piracy . . . [which] translates into total lost output among all industries of $20.5 billion annually. It also finds that lost earnings for all U.S. workers amounts to $5.5 billion annually, and 141,030 jobs that would otherwise have been created are lost. In addition, as a result of piracy, governments at the federal, state, and local levels are deprived of $837 million in tax revenues each year."

Look, I'm no statistician, but that sounds like guesswork multiplied by wild assumptions and divided by the square root of any random Senator's IQ. I'm not saying that piracy doesn't cost these industries a pretty penny, but it's nowhere near the apocalyptic levels they regularly regurgitate into any open microphone. You see, they are basing these ludicrous numbers on the fantastical assumption that every song, movie or computer program that is obtained by 'piracy' would otherwise have been purchased at the suggested retail price. This is wildly optimistic. Many people download pirate copies as much because they can, as from any desire to own them.

For example, say I find myself with access to a pirate copy of Adobe Photoshop. I play around and use it now and then, but does that mean without illicit access that I would otherwise have plunked down $500 for a legal copy? Not in a million years! Photoshop is a cool program to diddle with, but unless you really must have the high end features it offers, there are any number of alternatives that are far easier to use and far cheaper. Some even free! So Adobe wouldn't have lost a sale to me because I never would have actually bought it! It's the same with songs or movies. Sure some guy might download every movie ever made featuring Kate Beckinsale from a file sharing site, but how many would he have realistically ordered from Amazon if he didn't have access to the pirated copies? Very few, I'll wager. In fact, probably just the ones where she's dressed in leather or spandex!

I'd be surprised if these numbers were even in the same time zone as reality. None of these industries are being bled to death by piracy, despite their piteous cries. They suffer far more from their inability to adapt to changes in content delivery than to the loss of a few sales of the latest Justin Bieber album. Repeatedly these analog industries have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. First it was music, then movies and now publishing. Each time it was the same story and each time the industry in question wasted, and in some cases continues to waste, years and gobs of money fighting what they should have been rushing to embrace. The real losses from piracy come from places like China and Thailand and are of the old school variety; guys selling cell phone quality DVD copies of Avatar from a back alley in Bangkok! No argument that piracy in general is wrong, but current attempts to address it by threatening entire websites due to one piece of unauthorized content are of the 'killing an ant with a shotgun' variety. I don't think we need to shut down YouTube because someone posts a funny cat video with an unauthorized Lady Gaga soundtrack, do you?

More information and links regarding SOPA and PIPA anti piracy bills can be found HERE

The Little Spin-off that Did

Quick, what series holds the title of longest running American SciFi series? Nope, it's not ST:The Next Generation, Voyager or any of the other Trek iterations. Curious? Well, way back in 1994, Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Patriot, 2012) helmed a movie called Stargate. It starred Kurt Russell, James Spader and Jaye Davidson, fresh off his big role in The Crying Game. The film was a solid success, earning nearly $200 million worldwide, a good sum for the early 90's. Though it was a 'hit' movie, it would be its TV descendants that would leave the bigger mark.

If you never saw the movie, it was centered on an archeologist named Daniel Jackson who was quickly becoming a laughingstock for claiming that the great pyramids were landing platforms for aliens.  After a particularly bad lecture he is offered a mysterious job on a US military project. He finds himself trying to decipher symbols on a large ring shaped artifact that had been discovered in Egypt back in 1928. His breakthrough allows them to activate the 'Stargate' which promptly opens a wormhole connection to another identical gate on another planet. The movie plot takes off from there and, as you would expect, vindicates Jackson's theories and action, romance and special effects abound.

As successful as the movie was, no sequel ever materialized and in 1997 the story was revived as a Showtime series as Stargate: SG-1. It would, after season 5, move to the SciFi Channel for the rest of its run. They took the general plot and made a few tweaks that opened up the 'universe' a bit and allowed the kind of freedom a series would need to thrive.  Surprisingly though, the vast majority of the structure remained, including many of the core characters, though all but a couple supporting actors were recast. The updated storyline had the secret project becoming 'Stargate Command,' a super secret operation that was run from twenty some odd levels beneath Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado.  The 'SG-1' of the title refers to the first, and most elite of the Stargate teams made up of the two primary characters from the movie, Dr. Jackson and Air Force Colonel Jack O'Neill along with two newly created characters. Captain Samantha Carter, an Air Force officer and astrophysicist, and T'ealc, an 'alien' who joins the team following the series pilot. 

Much like the way Star Trek: TNG continued for a few more seasons after Deep Space 9 debuted, SG-1 still had two seasons ahead of it when they spun off Stargate: Atlantis. Atlantis was based on an alien city located far off in the Pegasus galaxy and actually spent its first season cut off from Earth. Atlantis ran for five seasons before being shuttered to make way for Stargate: Universe. Universe took place on an alien starship that was on an automated, unmanned exploration mission far off in the universe. The humans arrived onboard, via stargate, while escaping disaster and becoming marooned on the ship with minimal supplies and limited understanding of the ship and technology. Universe only managed two seasons before being cancelled. There was also a short lived animated series called Stargate: Infinity, which I never saw.

Both SG-1 and Atlantis held to a similar, successful formula that focused on a small group of interesting and likable characters exploring and often fighting for their survival as well as the survival of Earth itself on occasion. Universe was a completely different beast and I believe that's what spelled its doom. Whereas SG-1 and Atlantis were both adventure series, spiced with humor and sprinkled with a bit of drama, Universe was a heavy drama spiced with adventure and an occasional pinch of humor.  I was only able to manage about half a season before I gave up on it. Personally I found it way too dark and brooding where every character was deeply flawed and there seemed no real good guys. Think  'Stargate: Galactica'. I much preferred the lighter tone of the first two series. Both SG-1 and Atlantis had some interesting characters with their own quirks that were fun to watch. The writing was very good and the special effects were excellent, especially for cable TV show. Even the various sets were much better than you might expect. Another thing that set the first two iterations apart from some other science fiction series was that they weren't above taking gentle shots at sci/fi in general and Stargate in particular from time to time. For example a later episode of SG-1 had one character comment about a really corny line, a line that that character herself had delivered verbatim in one of the first episodes of the series. 

If you haven't seen Stargate: SG-1 or Stargate: Atlantis, or if you never really gave them a chance when they were in production, I highly recommend checking them out on Netflix sometime. Both series are available via disc and streaming. The first few episodes of SG-1 are a little rough in places, like pretty much every sci/fi series, but it quickly settles in as a top notch bit of science fiction. They may not have gotten as much attention as Star Trek, Babylon 5 or others, but SG-1 and Atlantis are well worth your time!

Unintentional

Mississippi is set to vote in less than a week on a state amendment that would redefine a 'person' as existing "from the moment of fertilization, cloning or functional equivalent thereof". Yes, it includes cloning. It's the latest round of attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Keep in mind that Roe v. Wade has been 'on the books' so to speak for almost 40 years now, yet has not been overturned.

Proposition 26 is, pardon the pun, the poster child for unintended consequences. It's one of those ideas that sounds interesting in a philosophical discussion about where life begins, but is a disaster waiting to happen if actually applied. The problem is that it opens the door to all sorts of complications that the simple minded folks who drew it up never considered.

Let's for a moment assume that this proposition was passed. We shall also assume, for the purposes of discussion, that it's not struck down immediately after introduction due to Constitutional conflicts, certainly a possibility. Based on the language, "moment of fertilization," could effectively outlaw some common forms of birth control such as the IUD. Some have even claimed that it could effect the Pill. Now there seems to be some disagreement on exactly where the birth control 'cut off' would be, though at least some personhood amendment supporters have expressed their belief and/or hope that it would ban the Pill. That in itself should worry you as it means that at least some of these people will fight to try and ensure it does include the Pill. Don't even think about any kind of birth control for victims of rape. This amendment would all but guarantee that these brutalized women would be forced by the state to carry their attacker's child.

What about a miscarriage or even a stillbirth? Does that trigger a mandatory homicide investigation? Sounds silly, but think about it. We've already had a woman in Mississippi charged with murder following the stillbirth of her baby, and while she did reportedly use cocaine there was no evidence that this had anything to do with the stillbirth.  So as crazy as it sounds, it's not a hypothetical question anymore. What if a woman smokes during pregnancy, could that be grounds for child endangerment charges?

But let's move outside the semi-obvious for a moment. Depending on interpretations this could effect in vitro fertilization and therefore endanger fertility treatments in general. On the same subject, will fertilized eggs be considered legal people? How will that effect inheritance law? Will this become part of census data, where every pregnant woman will need to note the number of fetuses she's carrying as members of the household? If the woman is injured or ill and you have to choose between her life or the life of her baby, will the judicial system step in to defend the rights of the fetus against the mother? What happens if the husband or her family choose to save the woman at the expense of the fetus? Would that be first degree murder now? While some of these examples may seem extreme, that doesn't mean they won't come into play. After all, we Americans have a knack for pushing the envelope in just about every facet of life.

I know we would all love a chart that clearly noted where 'life' starts, but it's not going to happen. It seems like it should be a simple question, but it's not. It's another of those annoying gray areas where everyone can come up with their own answer and make a case that they are right. This is why the abortion debate will not be solved in our lifetime and probably not for centuries, if ever. This "Personhood Amendment," while it may sound reasonable to the anti-abortion faction, is a bureaucratic, social and judicial land mine. Not only will it not clear up the question, it will muddy the waters far worse that they are now. Sometimes it's just as important to know when NOT to do something as it is to know when to do it. This is a good time NOT to do something.

Why Occupy

I keep hearing talking heads act dumbfounded by the current Occupy Wall Street protests/sit-ins. Really? Is it truly that much of a mystery?

Some of the nit picking is due to the lack of a simple, easily packaged mission statement that will fit in a headline. After all, that's the only thing most news shows and pundit parades have time for. They want a one sentence description they can wrap their pea brains around so they can then pontificate.

You want to know what it's all about? Try this little exercise. Google (or Bing, if you like) US unemployment statistics for the last few years.  National deficit estimates, mortgage foreclosure statistics and personal bankruptcies for the last year, just as a start. After you've spent a little time with those happy articles, search for US corporate earnings, middle class earnings of the last decade and earnings of the top few percent over the same period. Does anything strike you as strange about all this? Notice a trend?

Well, it sure seems odd to me and the crowds of people meeting for the Occupy Wall Street protests! It's odd that many of the companies who caused the economy to implode, and were then bailed out by American taxpayers, are doing great! Earnings as high or higher than before they mugged the economy and bonuses hitting record levels. Now compare that to the financial status of the bulk of Americans.

What are they protesting? They, and I, are watching as the top tier is slowly sucking dry the real engine of the economy, the middle class. We see a financial system guilty of massive greed and corruption yet, with few exceptions, puttering along as if nothing happened. What are the Occupy protesters looking for? How about Justice for those who don't make 6 or 7 figure salaries? How about making those who do take responsibility for their actions? Or is that too much to ask?

2011-10-30: Matt Taibbi has a good piece on this subject over at Rolling Stone. I encourage you to give it a read.

Dictator for a Day: Campaign Finance

As we drift into the election season I'm feeling that same old, sinking feeling I get every time the talking head parade begins. The feeling got worse after the Supreme Court's inexplicable 'Citizens United' decision a few years ago that all but wiped away any meaningful campaign finance restrictions.

Particularly over the last 30 years, our election system has become increasingly corrupted by money. Money in the hundreds of Millions of dollars floods into groups associated with candidates and political parties. Until recently there were a hodgepodge of campaign finance laws that made at least a valiant attempt to stem the tide of cash that surged into every election. But with one ruling, the now infamous 'Citizens United' decision, the Supreme Court swept most of them away. There are now only a few threadbare restrictions on the Who and How Much of campaign finance. Kind of like patching a dyke with a screen door. There are more than a few avenues and sleights of hand in place to allow anyone or any organization in America to donate without limit.

A great example is Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. It's a so called 501(C)(4) group that not only can accept unlimited sums of money, but doesn't have to tell anyone where the money comes from. The only ghost of a restriction is that they are not allowed to coordinate with individual candidates, as if that's any functional impediment. GPS and its sister group, which does divulge its donors, spent roughly $71 Million in support of Republicans during the 2010 midterm. About 90% of GPS' total collections for that cycle, according to some sources, came from just a few Billionaires. For the 2012 elections they are setting a goal of $240 Million! That's just for two, supposedly independent, groups. If this kind of money, for the Right or Left, doesn't scare you, then you are not thinking it through to its logical conclusion.

This trend is toxic for a functioning democracy. The more money the wealthy and big corporations spend the more control they gain over the system. Sure we all still get a vote, but big money is gaining more and more control over who the candidates are, what we hear about them and what their policy positions are. Money determines what messages are broadcast into our family rooms and how often we hear it. Even a stupid idea, repeated loudly enough and often enough will start to take hold. There are just too many Americans who are either too naive or too lazy to look past the bullet points. They just let ads, pundits and party loyalty guide them blindly along the path without ever asking themselves if what they are being told even makes sense.

Just look at the 2008 financial debacle, if you don't believe me. Various parts of the United States financial industry destroyed the nation's economy and kicked the legs out from under much of the industrialized world. There isn't really even any debate over this fact anymore, aside from the question of whether it was a case of apathy or ignorance. But having done that, and then being rescued because we were all terrified of what might happen if the big banks actually failed all at once, they used every bit of pressure they could bring to bear to kill or weaken any attempt at true, meaningful reform. Even the financial reform bill that did finally emerge has been beaten and bloodied ceaselessly by Wall Street lobbyists to protect their astoundingly profitable casino. Actually, I should apologize as that's an insult to casinos who, unlike our banks, are required to actually have enough money on hand to cover all their bets. So even a blatantly obvious need to reform the banking system can't stand up to the massed checkbooks of that same industry.

If I was Dictator for a Day, the first thing on my list would be a Constitutional Amendment completely revamping campaign finance. Put simply, the days of big money control of US elections would be over.

First, no group, PAC, union or corporation of any kind could donate to political campaigns. Period. This would include these supposedly independent groups like Crossroads GPS. The only legal way to donate would be from individual citizen contributions.

Second, there would be a cap on individual donations, similar to current standards, with a $2500 per election cycle and $5000 per calendar year limit, adjusted for inflation in odd calendar years. Anyone found in violation of these limits would be guilty of voter fraud, face heavy fines and would be barred from donating to any candidate for at least one election cycle.

Third, each candidate would be allowed to create or hire ONE company/organization to manage the collection and disbursement of donations. They would all be licensed & renewed yearly. Their donation records would be available under normal Freedom of Information act rules. Anonymous donations would be illegal. Each group would face at least two random audits per election cycle. The audits would check general fiscal operations as well as take random samplings of donation records to confirm they are indeed real adult, US Citizens. Groups in violation of these rules, beyond a tiny margin for legitimate errors, would face draconian financial penalties, immediate cessation of campaign finance operations, a freeze on all funds and lose their license for a minimum of 2 years.

Fourth, candidates could not use their own personal funds for their campaigns. They would only be able to donate as individuals with the same limits.

Fifth, 'gifts' to candidates would be heavily restricted and fully public under Freedom of Information like rules.

I'm sure there are many details that would have to be ironed out or added, but you get the idea. This would go a long way towards leveling the playing field for voters. The wealthiest individuals and companies would no longer be able to simply buy elections. Sure there's no way to completely bolt the door shut, not considering how devious some of these people are. But it would make it much more difficult and if they were caught they would face more than a slap on the wrist. This amendment would also have the added benefit of preventing the waste of hundreds of Millions of dollars that could be put to far better use. Look, we have a big problem with our election system, but it's not yet too corrupt to reform. Unless of course we continue to ignore the problem till election day becomes nothing but a technicality to placate the masses.

Motivational Dysfunction

I have to give Republicans their due. Without a doubt, the GOP is the clear winner when it comes to playing the game of politics. While individual Democrats are skilled, the party as a whole often seems completely out of its depth. Mostly I think that comes from being much less unified than the GOP. The Democrats are far more inclusive of views that fall outside the core party platform, making unified movement challenging at times. A bigger tent, as some like to say.  The Republicans may snipe at each other around primary time, but when dealing with a Democratic challenge, they close ranks like an ancient Greek phalanx!

I don't know how much is follow-the-leader and how much is good old fashioned authoritarian decree, but ever since the Obama Administration took office the GOP has moved as a single entity. They recognized that the economic collapse of 2008 gave them a priceless opportunity to attack the new, popular President from day one. Despite not being sworn into office till after the financial bailout (TARP) had already been passed, the GOP immediately began laying full responsibility for everything related to the economic collapse at Obama's doorstep. Phrasing even TARP related criticism as if it was all Obama's idea and neatly sidestepping their own votes for the Bush era package. This would become the Republican model for everything that has come since.

Despite a stimulus package that economists have repeatedly claimed created or saved upwards of 2.7 million jobs, the GOP to this day continues to deride it as useless. They did this even as a number of them quietly submitted requests for stimulus money for projects they themselves explicitly claimed would create jobs! But publicly the Republicans maintained a solid front in claiming the stimulus did nothing and that this proved that government was powerless to do anything positive, thus making any attempt at passing a second stimulus a political impossibility. From the beginning, the GOP economic recovery plan has consisted of only a single refrain, cut taxes on the 'job creators'. These would be the same 'job creators' who were, and still are, laying off workers not because of high taxes, but because of limited demand. So there they were, proposing policies that would benefit them politically by buddying up to big business while ensuring that the economic status quo remained undisturbed. Put simply, the GOP claimed the President was at fault for the continuing economic trouble while simultaneously blocking any proposal he put forth that might have made a difference. I'd rate the GOP at one out of ten for job performance, but ten out of ten for political finesse!

The problem is that I don't think any of the men with a hand in framing our Constitution ever envisioned a situation where roughly half the legislature would see political advantage in maintaining a recession level economy. But that's where we are! I'm sure there are those who will read this and scream 'partisanship'! But think about it, who would benefit from a recovering economy? Sure the GOP could try and claim some hand in it, but it's pretty widely accepted that voters will judge a President on the state of the economy. If it's booming, he can claim credit, no matter which party controls the House or Senate. If it's a bust, he must also take the blame, no matter who controls the House or Senate. So the GOP has everything to gain and nothing to lose, politically anyway, by maintaining the current state of affairs. They know that if Obama goes into the 2012 election with unemployment at 9%, it will seriously hurt his chances for re-election. And, unfortunately for all those millions of Americans looking for work, this is all about elections. Senate Minority Leader McConnell has explicitly said, on several occasions, that preventing Obama from winning a second term is his primary political goal. I have to give him points for being honest, but this reminds me of a line from the movie Ocean's 11. Rusty is confronting Danny about trying to pull this huge casino heist while simultaneously winning back his ex-wife in the same operation. Rusty asks him, "So what happens if you can't have them both? Which one are you going to choose?" Senator McConnell, the most powerful Republican in the Senate, has clearly stated what his choice would be if forced to pick between improving the economy or defeating President Obama's re-election. The truth is that the GOP, as a whole, has long since made their choice and it's not looking good for the economy.