No matter where you stood on Iraq, the UN didn't do a good job. The organization didn't manage to get inspectors in. It didn't back its demands with force. And when it failed, that didn't stop the US and the UK from taking matters into their own hands.
That's why I'm not convinced that the new round of sanctions against Iran is going to do any good. I haven't seen many movies, but I'm pretty sure I remember this one.
From the AP:
"The result of two months of tough negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs."
Well, it's a start. Or maybe not, because Iran itself doesn't think so:
"The Iranian government immediately rejected the resolution, vowing in a statement from Tehran to continue enriching uranium, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel for civilian purposes or for a nuclear bomb. The government said it 'has not delegated its destiny to the invalid decisions of the U.N. Security Council.'"
Just perhaps, that's because the resolution has a "we won't enforce this" clause built right into it:
"If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees 'that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'"
I've pointed out before that nonmilitary sanctions only work when pretty much the whole world cooperates.
Indeed, the US hopes that other countries, like Russia, will impose their own additional sanctions thanks to this resolution. Problem is, Russia barely agreed to the existing ones:
"The administration had pushed for tougher penalties. But Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, and Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, balked. To get their votes, the resolution dropped a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development and specified the banned items and technologies."
We're depending on Russia's help, when Russia didn't want "a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development"? How serious can Russia be? And how serious can we be if we think Russia will help?
The bottom line is that, whatever happened in the long-term occupation of Iraq, force -- or at least the credible threat of it -- is the only thing that will stop someone with these kinds of goals. This "get everyone together to talk" strategy failed once, and it will fail again. It's never a good sign when you have to take the teeth out of a resolution to placate a country -- and you plan to use that country as a disarmer.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
Immigration activists: Arresting illegals is Hitleresque
This story is, unfortunately, a rather extreme example of identity politics gone wild. Left-wing Hispanic activist groups are calling for an end to illegal immigration workplace raids, comparing them to Hitler's roundup of Jews.
Well, except for that pesky fact that Jews had a right to be in Germany. And that minor complication that the U.S. government is arresting, not exterminating, illegal Hispanics.
The amazing thing is that there isn't a single assertion in the article that the government falsely arrested a single Latin American. So there is no evidence of racial profiling in this case whatsoever (I support racial profiling to combat terrorism, but not to control plain-and-simple illegal immigration). "Many" of the arrestees were Hispanic because, well, many illegal immigrants are Hispanic.
An activist also claims that deporting the workers would hurt the U.S. economy, so I guess it's time I laid out my perspective on illegal immigration.
For starters, illegal immigrants create massive costs and benefits. They use social services, drive down wages (there's no such thing as a job Americans won't do, just prices they won't do it at), take jobs low-IQ Americans could use and disproportionately commit crimes. On the other hand, they pay some taxes and contribute to the economy. Driving down wages can even be seen as a good thing, because the products Americans buy go down slightly in price.
On balance, most experts agree that immigration, legal and illegal, is good for the economy. Business owners see the biggest benefit, and the average American saves a little bit of money each year in cheaper goods. But low-wage workers get a major lashing, losing jobs and getting paid less.
My bottom line is this: I'm OK with just about any level of immigration, so long as it's decided democratically and properly enforced. I like cheap products, but I also like keeping down the social problems that come with immigration. For someone who doesn't have to live in a high-crime neighborhood or compete for factory jobs, it's a wash. I only ask that legislators take the interests of low-wage laborers to heart and balance them against the interests of business and the general public. Right now, no one in government seems to care about folks losing their jobs.
We need to enforce our laws -- and that means arresting illegal immigrants and deporting them whenever we catch them -- and change those laws if we think the benefits of doing so outweigh the cost. There's nothing Hitleresque about that.
And we absolutely need to recognize what most Americans do, that illegal immigration comes with costs as well as benefits.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Well, except for that pesky fact that Jews had a right to be in Germany. And that minor complication that the U.S. government is arresting, not exterminating, illegal Hispanics.
The amazing thing is that there isn't a single assertion in the article that the government falsely arrested a single Latin American. So there is no evidence of racial profiling in this case whatsoever (I support racial profiling to combat terrorism, but not to control plain-and-simple illegal immigration). "Many" of the arrestees were Hispanic because, well, many illegal immigrants are Hispanic.
An activist also claims that deporting the workers would hurt the U.S. economy, so I guess it's time I laid out my perspective on illegal immigration.
For starters, illegal immigrants create massive costs and benefits. They use social services, drive down wages (there's no such thing as a job Americans won't do, just prices they won't do it at), take jobs low-IQ Americans could use and disproportionately commit crimes. On the other hand, they pay some taxes and contribute to the economy. Driving down wages can even be seen as a good thing, because the products Americans buy go down slightly in price.
On balance, most experts agree that immigration, legal and illegal, is good for the economy. Business owners see the biggest benefit, and the average American saves a little bit of money each year in cheaper goods. But low-wage workers get a major lashing, losing jobs and getting paid less.
My bottom line is this: I'm OK with just about any level of immigration, so long as it's decided democratically and properly enforced. I like cheap products, but I also like keeping down the social problems that come with immigration. For someone who doesn't have to live in a high-crime neighborhood or compete for factory jobs, it's a wash. I only ask that legislators take the interests of low-wage laborers to heart and balance them against the interests of business and the general public. Right now, no one in government seems to care about folks losing their jobs.
We need to enforce our laws -- and that means arresting illegal immigrants and deporting them whenever we catch them -- and change those laws if we think the benefits of doing so outweigh the cost. There's nothing Hitleresque about that.
And we absolutely need to recognize what most Americans do, that illegal immigration comes with costs as well as benefits.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Minimum wage hike bad for Democrats?
My friend Jeremy Lott answers "yes" in Real Clear Politics:
"[S]everal Democratic strategists spoke of the minimum wage hikes as their very own version of gay marriage before the election. They were right. It proved to be a popular issue...
"But here's the rub: Democrats can continue to hike minimum wages on a state-by-state basis or they can hike the federal minimum wage, but probably not both. A federal raise will relieve pressure to hike state minimum wages and rob Democrats of future political gains."
It's a very interesting and counterintuitive argument, that Democrats can do better for themselves politically by failing to deliver on promises they've made.
But there are ways to get around it, even though Pelosi has promised action and Bush said he'd pass it if small business regulations are simultaneously relieved:
"They can encourage Republicans in the Senate to filibuster it or, failing that, pass a bill so ridiculous that even President Bush will have to veto it. Then tell voters the Man is keeping them down."
"[S]everal Democratic strategists spoke of the minimum wage hikes as their very own version of gay marriage before the election. They were right. It proved to be a popular issue...
"But here's the rub: Democrats can continue to hike minimum wages on a state-by-state basis or they can hike the federal minimum wage, but probably not both. A federal raise will relieve pressure to hike state minimum wages and rob Democrats of future political gains."
It's a very interesting and counterintuitive argument, that Democrats can do better for themselves politically by failing to deliver on promises they've made.
But there are ways to get around it, even though Pelosi has promised action and Bush said he'd pass it if small business regulations are simultaneously relieved:
"They can encourage Republicans in the Senate to filibuster it or, failing that, pass a bill so ridiculous that even President Bush will have to veto it. Then tell voters the Man is keeping them down."
Donald Trump to sue Rosie O'Donnell
The war of words between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell is an interesting one. It started when O'Donnell slammed Trump's decision to let Miss USA keep the title after drug- and sex-related incidents. O'Donnell alleged he'd filed for bankruptcy and that he'd had extramarital affairs. You can see Trump's response -- in which he calls her "unattractive," threatens to steal her girlfriend, promises to sue and basically comes off like a 13-year-old -- here. (Sue me, Donald.)
Judging from Trump's statements he plans to sue for slander, though he hasn't come out and said what grounds the lawsuit will rest on. He disputes the bankruptcy allegation.
This is unlikely to succeed for a number of reasons.
For one, truth is basically an absolute defense against a slander allegation. I can't find evidence Trump ever personally filed bankruptcy (this TIME article says no, Wikipedia says he came "to the brink").
But it's an absolute fact that Trump's company has filed bankruptcy, twice. So the statement that Trump has "filed for bankruptcy," without the word "personally," is quite arguably truthful.
Also, Trump is a public figure who has been prominent in the media for something like two decades. He voluntarily started a huge network TV show. This means he'll be held to the "actual malice" standard, having to prove not only that Rosie was wrong, but that she knew she was wrong or made the statement with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
Considering Trump vs. his company is an easy mistake to make, it will be hard to show that Rosie went out of her way to say something false.
Trump knows all of this, and maybe he plans to sue on some other grounds with a lower burden of proof, but it's likely the whole thing is a publicity stunt.
It also, however, fits into his reputation as a bully. John Stossel has documented how Trump has tried to use the government to force people from their homes -- to make room for Trump's casinos. When Stossel confronted Trump, Trump responded, "no one talks to me that way."
I quite enjoyed the second season of The Apprentice; Trump's firing Bradford was probably the most brilliant reality TV moment I've ever seen. But the guy has some serious ego problems (with that hair, I wouldn't call anyone else "unattractive").
It would be nice to see Rosie cut down to size though. The whole gun-grabbing thing really gets to me.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: I've just noticed how often Trump plays the "she's ugly" card, to the degree of using the term "fat slob." Why is there no Kramer-style oh-my-god reaction here?
Awhile back I made the point that Michael Richards's problem wasn't in telling off the hecklers -- they deserved it -- but in using terminology that insulted an entire community. Trump is doing the same thing, but it's OK, because it's socially acceptable to insult the unattractive and overweight.
Judging from Trump's statements he plans to sue for slander, though he hasn't come out and said what grounds the lawsuit will rest on. He disputes the bankruptcy allegation.
This is unlikely to succeed for a number of reasons.
For one, truth is basically an absolute defense against a slander allegation. I can't find evidence Trump ever personally filed bankruptcy (this TIME article says no, Wikipedia says he came "to the brink").
But it's an absolute fact that Trump's company has filed bankruptcy, twice. So the statement that Trump has "filed for bankruptcy," without the word "personally," is quite arguably truthful.
Also, Trump is a public figure who has been prominent in the media for something like two decades. He voluntarily started a huge network TV show. This means he'll be held to the "actual malice" standard, having to prove not only that Rosie was wrong, but that she knew she was wrong or made the statement with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
Considering Trump vs. his company is an easy mistake to make, it will be hard to show that Rosie went out of her way to say something false.
Trump knows all of this, and maybe he plans to sue on some other grounds with a lower burden of proof, but it's likely the whole thing is a publicity stunt.
It also, however, fits into his reputation as a bully. John Stossel has documented how Trump has tried to use the government to force people from their homes -- to make room for Trump's casinos. When Stossel confronted Trump, Trump responded, "no one talks to me that way."
I quite enjoyed the second season of The Apprentice; Trump's firing Bradford was probably the most brilliant reality TV moment I've ever seen. But the guy has some serious ego problems (with that hair, I wouldn't call anyone else "unattractive").
It would be nice to see Rosie cut down to size though. The whole gun-grabbing thing really gets to me.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: I've just noticed how often Trump plays the "she's ugly" card, to the degree of using the term "fat slob." Why is there no Kramer-style oh-my-god reaction here?
Awhile back I made the point that Michael Richards's problem wasn't in telling off the hecklers -- they deserved it -- but in using terminology that insulted an entire community. Trump is doing the same thing, but it's OK, because it's socially acceptable to insult the unattractive and overweight.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Dodged that bullet
From the Green Bay Press-Gazette (where I interned this summer):
"As many as 30 people were treated for various injuries at Tuesday night’s Music as a Weapon Tour concert at the Resch Center in Ashwaubenon, according to the Ashwaubenon Public Safety Department.
"Between 25 to 30 people suffered from either cuts, bruises, and overheating after participating in a mosh pit, officials said."
Music as a Weapon is Disturbed's tour; they've called it that three times, I believe. I actually saw the first one -- in Ashwaubenon, though at the Veterans Memorial Arena, next door to the land that would become the Resch Center later. Thank God I left Green Bay, or that would've been me in the pit!
Hat tip: Blabbermouth.
"As many as 30 people were treated for various injuries at Tuesday night’s Music as a Weapon Tour concert at the Resch Center in Ashwaubenon, according to the Ashwaubenon Public Safety Department.
"Between 25 to 30 people suffered from either cuts, bruises, and overheating after participating in a mosh pit, officials said."
Music as a Weapon is Disturbed's tour; they've called it that three times, I believe. I actually saw the first one -- in Ashwaubenon, though at the Veterans Memorial Arena, next door to the land that would become the Resch Center later. Thank God I left Green Bay, or that would've been me in the pit!
Hat tip: Blabbermouth.
New piece up at antiMusic
antiMusic has my review of E(v)olocity's CD.
Main point:
"E(v)olocity's self-titled release fits pretty squarely in the 'bands that sound like other bands' category, adding just a little edge to the 3 Doors Down style. Still, it's a lot of fun."
Main point:
"E(v)olocity's self-titled release fits pretty squarely in the 'bands that sound like other bands' category, adding just a little edge to the 3 Doors Down style. Still, it's a lot of fun."
Study: 9 in 10 Americans have premarital sex
This study is fascinating -- more than 90 percent of Americans have premarital sex, even going back to those born in the 1940s.
Bear in mind the biases of the researchers:
"Finer is a research director at the Guttmacher Institute, a private New York-based think tank that studies sexual and reproductive issues and which disagrees with government-funded programs that rely primarily on abstinence-only teachings."
I'm skeptical of the study for a few reasons. For one, it found that 80 percent of those who abstained until age 20 still had sex before they got married, which strikes me as maybe a little high. 60 percent of students are active before graduating high school, so I'd think many of the abstainers kept zipped for a reason.
But I'm most skeptical of the implications people are taking from it. For example, the news stories say this challenges "perceptions that people were more chaste in the past."
Well, not really. It only goes back to people born in the 1940s -- even the oldest ones turned 20 in 1960, the dawn of a decade not know for its sexual repression. That was the very year the birth control pill was introduced.
When people say chastity used to be more common, they're typically referring to the 1950s and earlier. You'd need folks born in the early '40s and before, not people dating back to the 1940s generally, to test that.
I also think there are more important things than the sex-no sex dichotomy measures. For example, people married earlier in the past, so they would have fewer years in which to fool around. This means fewer sex partners; less promiscuity if not more chastity. Also, before the birth control pill people got married to cover up pregnancies -- that's why illegitimate birth was so rare then.
The research makes no attempt to distinguish between someone who loses his/her virginity to a fiancee and someone who starts sleeping around at 16. Both are "premarital sex," and I'd guess the latter got a lot more frequent after the pill and Roe v. Wade.
The research, if done correctly, does indicate that abstinence programs aren't likely to succeed in today's world (and lest the above make it sound otherwise, I think the birth control pill is a good technological development). But it doesn't say that sexual mores and behaviors haven't changed for the worse in the last few decades, and the results need to been seen in the context of skyrocketed illegitimacy.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Bear in mind the biases of the researchers:
"Finer is a research director at the Guttmacher Institute, a private New York-based think tank that studies sexual and reproductive issues and which disagrees with government-funded programs that rely primarily on abstinence-only teachings."
I'm skeptical of the study for a few reasons. For one, it found that 80 percent of those who abstained until age 20 still had sex before they got married, which strikes me as maybe a little high. 60 percent of students are active before graduating high school, so I'd think many of the abstainers kept zipped for a reason.
But I'm most skeptical of the implications people are taking from it. For example, the news stories say this challenges "perceptions that people were more chaste in the past."
Well, not really. It only goes back to people born in the 1940s -- even the oldest ones turned 20 in 1960, the dawn of a decade not know for its sexual repression. That was the very year the birth control pill was introduced.
When people say chastity used to be more common, they're typically referring to the 1950s and earlier. You'd need folks born in the early '40s and before, not people dating back to the 1940s generally, to test that.
I also think there are more important things than the sex-no sex dichotomy measures. For example, people married earlier in the past, so they would have fewer years in which to fool around. This means fewer sex partners; less promiscuity if not more chastity. Also, before the birth control pill people got married to cover up pregnancies -- that's why illegitimate birth was so rare then.
The research makes no attempt to distinguish between someone who loses his/her virginity to a fiancee and someone who starts sleeping around at 16. Both are "premarital sex," and I'd guess the latter got a lot more frequent after the pill and Roe v. Wade.
The research, if done correctly, does indicate that abstinence programs aren't likely to succeed in today's world (and lest the above make it sound otherwise, I think the birth control pill is a good technological development). But it doesn't say that sexual mores and behaviors haven't changed for the worse in the last few decades, and the results need to been seen in the context of skyrocketed illegitimacy.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
New piece up at the Examiner
The Examiner has my review of Arthur Brooks's book Who Really Cares. The work argues that conservatives give more money to charity than liberals do.
Main point: "It's a clear and well argued book for the most part, backed by numbers galore."
Also, I believe I'm the first person to consult Brooks directly about leaving cost of living out of the calculations. Conservatives tend to live in areas with lower cost of living, so they have more left over to donate. His response is in the article.
Main point: "It's a clear and well argued book for the most part, backed by numbers galore."
Also, I believe I'm the first person to consult Brooks directly about leaving cost of living out of the calculations. Conservatives tend to live in areas with lower cost of living, so they have more left over to donate. His response is in the article.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Note to Time magazine
If you're going to put a mirror on your cover -- so, as Jeremy Lott puts it, readers can "gaze Narcissus-like at their own reflection" -- make it work. I twisted the office's copy every which way, and I still couldn't make out my beautiful shining face. Or muscle-bound body.
Rock acts sue memorabilia seller
Here's an interesting story in music/legal news: Some rock acts have sued an entrepreneur for selling memorabilia. He obtained the items from promoter Bill Graham's archives.
From the story:
"Sagan purchased the vintage items from Clear Channel Entertainment in 2003 and soon thereafter launched the Wolfgang's Vault site. The site also streams music from soundboard recordings of Graham-presented shows from the 1960s through the late '80s."
The bands are Carlos Santana, The Doors, Led Zeppelin and the Grateful Dead.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd say the latter issue -- streaming music -- is most definitely a copyright violation (unless Sagan also bought rights from Clear Channel/the copyright owners). There are two types of copyright pertinent here, performance and composition.
Performance is, like it sounds, a specific playing of a piece; even if I didn't write "Canon in D," if I record myself playing it, you can't use that recording without permission. Sagan, judging by the story, seems to own the performance -- the soundboard recording.
But composition is also protected. If the copyright for "Canon in D" wasn't expired, I could be sued by Pachelbel's estate. So Sagan probably has no right to stream the songs for all to hear.
The plaintiffs could also see some success about the man selling replications of memorabilia. Even if he owns the original promotional item, the bands own the associated trademarks and copyrights. An analogy: If I buy a limited edition CD, I can sell it, but I can't make copies.
But again, I can sell it -- that's why I'm a little more skeptical about the plaintiffs' objection to selling original memorabilia. If Clear Channel had legitimate possession of the memorabilia, and sold the items to him, one would think he could do with the items as he pleased.
One legal avenue they might have is misappropriation, which is using "the name, portrait, picture or sound of any living person for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, without first having obtained the written consent of such person." This would indicate he's free to sell the items, but he can't use the surviving band members' images to do it. Using the bands' names in ads might also violate trademark laws.
It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. There are a few previous cases that show how uncertain the decision is.
The owners of Hollywood Rose's recordings (HR is Axl Rose's pre-Guns N' Roses band) were able to call the CD "The roots of Guns N' Roses." Court decision here. They argued their only alternative was something like "The Roots of the Popular Rock Band on Geffen Records that Sold Millions of Albums and Sang the Hit Song 'Welcome to the Jungle.'"
This case, however, hinged on the fact that the words "Guns N' Roses" were a reference to the band Guns N' Roses for comparative purposes -- the record wasn't being sold as a Guns N' Roses record, or with the implication that the band had approved it.
Also, early Marilyn Manson material had to come out under The Spooky Kids, with no reference to the singer (the band was originally called Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids). Even images that looked like Manson were removed.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times has a more reasonable explanation for why original memorabilia sales might be illegal in this case:
"Sagan simply doesn't have the legal rights to exploit and profit from the extraordinary success of these musicians," said attorney Jeff Reeves, who represents the musicians and works in the Irvine offices of Los Angeles law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. "This memorabilia was created in the first place for the purposes of promoting concerts and as gifts for fans and concert crew. Graham himself did not have the right to sell, reproduce or otherwise exploit these materials as a promoter, and neither does Sagan, who was not authorized to purchase these materials and who has absolutely no connection to the artists or their music."
And a hilarious quote from a Doors member:
"That's how artists make money, and it's OK for artists to make money and they should make money when people are selling their name and their image," Manzarek said. "If people are buying something because it says the Doors on it then, you know, you should give the Doors some of the money. Look, I need to pay my electric bill. I play an electric keyboard."
The thing is, though, once the Doors sell something and take a cut, people don't owe them another cut for re-selling it.
From the story:
"Sagan purchased the vintage items from Clear Channel Entertainment in 2003 and soon thereafter launched the Wolfgang's Vault site. The site also streams music from soundboard recordings of Graham-presented shows from the 1960s through the late '80s."
The bands are Carlos Santana, The Doors, Led Zeppelin and the Grateful Dead.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd say the latter issue -- streaming music -- is most definitely a copyright violation (unless Sagan also bought rights from Clear Channel/the copyright owners). There are two types of copyright pertinent here, performance and composition.
Performance is, like it sounds, a specific playing of a piece; even if I didn't write "Canon in D," if I record myself playing it, you can't use that recording without permission. Sagan, judging by the story, seems to own the performance -- the soundboard recording.
But composition is also protected. If the copyright for "Canon in D" wasn't expired, I could be sued by Pachelbel's estate. So Sagan probably has no right to stream the songs for all to hear.
The plaintiffs could also see some success about the man selling replications of memorabilia. Even if he owns the original promotional item, the bands own the associated trademarks and copyrights. An analogy: If I buy a limited edition CD, I can sell it, but I can't make copies.
But again, I can sell it -- that's why I'm a little more skeptical about the plaintiffs' objection to selling original memorabilia. If Clear Channel had legitimate possession of the memorabilia, and sold the items to him, one would think he could do with the items as he pleased.
One legal avenue they might have is misappropriation, which is using "the name, portrait, picture or sound of any living person for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, without first having obtained the written consent of such person." This would indicate he's free to sell the items, but he can't use the surviving band members' images to do it. Using the bands' names in ads might also violate trademark laws.
It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. There are a few previous cases that show how uncertain the decision is.
The owners of Hollywood Rose's recordings (HR is Axl Rose's pre-Guns N' Roses band) were able to call the CD "The roots of Guns N' Roses." Court decision here. They argued their only alternative was something like "The Roots of the Popular Rock Band on Geffen Records that Sold Millions of Albums and Sang the Hit Song 'Welcome to the Jungle.'"
This case, however, hinged on the fact that the words "Guns N' Roses" were a reference to the band Guns N' Roses for comparative purposes -- the record wasn't being sold as a Guns N' Roses record, or with the implication that the band had approved it.
Also, early Marilyn Manson material had to come out under The Spooky Kids, with no reference to the singer (the band was originally called Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids). Even images that looked like Manson were removed.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times has a more reasonable explanation for why original memorabilia sales might be illegal in this case:
"Sagan simply doesn't have the legal rights to exploit and profit from the extraordinary success of these musicians," said attorney Jeff Reeves, who represents the musicians and works in the Irvine offices of Los Angeles law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. "This memorabilia was created in the first place for the purposes of promoting concerts and as gifts for fans and concert crew. Graham himself did not have the right to sell, reproduce or otherwise exploit these materials as a promoter, and neither does Sagan, who was not authorized to purchase these materials and who has absolutely no connection to the artists or their music."
And a hilarious quote from a Doors member:
"That's how artists make money, and it's OK for artists to make money and they should make money when people are selling their name and their image," Manzarek said. "If people are buying something because it says the Doors on it then, you know, you should give the Doors some of the money. Look, I need to pay my electric bill. I play an electric keyboard."
The thing is, though, once the Doors sell something and take a cut, people don't owe them another cut for re-selling it.
Paging Mr. Lott
Congrats to my friend Jeremy Lott -- by complete accident, he accomplished his goal of getting into the Wall Street Journal. The paper picked up a piece he wrote for the American Spectator's Web site.
It's about Time's picking "You" as Person of the Year, writing a trend story about technology and highlighting rather lame examples of Internet users:
"As far as trend stories go, this should have been an easy one. That advances in technology are allowing more people to customize and produce their own media is inarguable, and some of the results are truly impressive. Rather than seeking out great examples, the magazine chose to highlight mostly the weird and embarrassing. Why?
"Part of the problem is institutional. The issue was written entirely by regular Time staffers and contributors who seem to have great difficulty understanding this strange new media man--especially the part about his hatred of condescension."
It's about Time's picking "You" as Person of the Year, writing a trend story about technology and highlighting rather lame examples of Internet users:
"As far as trend stories go, this should have been an easy one. That advances in technology are allowing more people to customize and produce their own media is inarguable, and some of the results are truly impressive. Rather than seeking out great examples, the magazine chose to highlight mostly the weird and embarrassing. Why?
"Part of the problem is institutional. The issue was written entirely by regular Time staffers and contributors who seem to have great difficulty understanding this strange new media man--especially the part about his hatred of condescension."
Monday, December 18, 2006
New piece up at antiMusic
antiMusic has my review of Scar'd Sanity's record.
Main point:
"Scar'd Sanity is the type of band no one should take seriously. Ridiculous spelling? We've got a Shakespeare in the house, though at least they didn't go with "Skar'd" instead. Faux-metal riffing? Check. Overdramatic lyrics? The singer is 'screaming on the inside.' Dead-serious band photo? Sure, though their 'rock star' faces actually look kinda cute.
"The guitars never stand out, but they never get in the way, either. Singer Mike Prince lets out a decent shriek every now and then, but there's hardly a song here that would seem out of place on the average pop/rock station.
"Yet there's something worthwhile about ...A Way to Hide, something special that takes listeners back to a time all this would have made sense. Maybe high school - when processed-to-all-hell vocals don't make an artist sound any less authentic, and when all forms of 'authority' are worth screaming all emo-style over. "
Main point:
"Scar'd Sanity is the type of band no one should take seriously. Ridiculous spelling? We've got a Shakespeare in the house, though at least they didn't go with "Skar'd" instead. Faux-metal riffing? Check. Overdramatic lyrics? The singer is 'screaming on the inside.' Dead-serious band photo? Sure, though their 'rock star' faces actually look kinda cute.
"The guitars never stand out, but they never get in the way, either. Singer Mike Prince lets out a decent shriek every now and then, but there's hardly a song here that would seem out of place on the average pop/rock station.
"Yet there's something worthwhile about ...A Way to Hide, something special that takes listeners back to a time all this would have made sense. Maybe high school - when processed-to-all-hell vocals don't make an artist sound any less authentic, and when all forms of 'authority' are worth screaming all emo-style over. "
Conservative talk radio and the 2006 election
My friend Jim Antle has an interesting article about conservative talk radio that's gotten some people talking.
His thesis is that because commentators are toeing the GOP line, they're less influential than they were in 1994:
"Here's the key difference: In 1994, talk radio and its allies elsewhere in the conservative media gave the GOP a useful window into popular discontent. Hosts pilloried the 1993 Clinton tax increase, mocked midnight basketball, railed against Hillarycare and tapped into frustrations with the unreformed welfare system. They were quick to understand the potent symbolism of events like the House banking scandal. The mainstream media was often left playing catch-up to upstarts on the AM dial.
"Twelve years later, these commentators seemed to be stifling public discontent as often as they were tapping into it. They frequently castigated the liberal media for its 'negativity' and refusal to report good news coming out of Iraq. While antiwar sentiment grew into a mainstream – and perhaps majority – position, many conservative commentators continued to treat doubters as a far-left fringe. Yet the polls clearly show that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan aren't the only critics of the war."
I agree; fans of talk radio have pointed out to me that commentators are most fun when the other guy is in power. It's especially problematic when their guy is in power and things aren't looking so hot. In 1994, a pro-GOP message stood for "discontent;" now, not so much.
I think a more independent talk radio could have had more influence on the election, but I'm not sure in which direction. When prominent conservatives criticize the GOP, sometimes they spur a course correction -- the article mentions Harriet Miers, a great example -- but other times, they just bring down their own party.
His thesis is that because commentators are toeing the GOP line, they're less influential than they were in 1994:
"Here's the key difference: In 1994, talk radio and its allies elsewhere in the conservative media gave the GOP a useful window into popular discontent. Hosts pilloried the 1993 Clinton tax increase, mocked midnight basketball, railed against Hillarycare and tapped into frustrations with the unreformed welfare system. They were quick to understand the potent symbolism of events like the House banking scandal. The mainstream media was often left playing catch-up to upstarts on the AM dial.
"Twelve years later, these commentators seemed to be stifling public discontent as often as they were tapping into it. They frequently castigated the liberal media for its 'negativity' and refusal to report good news coming out of Iraq. While antiwar sentiment grew into a mainstream – and perhaps majority – position, many conservative commentators continued to treat doubters as a far-left fringe. Yet the polls clearly show that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan aren't the only critics of the war."
I agree; fans of talk radio have pointed out to me that commentators are most fun when the other guy is in power. It's especially problematic when their guy is in power and things aren't looking so hot. In 1994, a pro-GOP message stood for "discontent;" now, not so much.
I think a more independent talk radio could have had more influence on the election, but I'm not sure in which direction. When prominent conservatives criticize the GOP, sometimes they spur a course correction -- the article mentions Harriet Miers, a great example -- but other times, they just bring down their own party.
Newsweek: Iraq's economy booming
Just last week in The National Interest online, I argued that the U.S. was destabilizing Iraq by pushing democracy. Applying the theory from Ian Bremmer's The J Curve, I said the occupation should focus on economic development instead. We'll have a better chance at democratization if we wait awhile.
Statistically and theoretically, it's very unlikely a democracy will take root in poverty, and forcing governmental openness hurts stability. The unabating violence is a warning sign that we should take a few steps backward -- closed societies are better than failed states.
So this Newsweek story is great news -- Iraq's economy is booming, indicating that either (A) the occupation really has been doing a good job of economic development, even if the efforts aren't public or (B) the Iraqi people more resourceful than we give them credit for.
From the story:
"Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all."
If 4 percent is more accurate, Iraq has a long way to go before prosperity will cause stability. As I wrote in TNI, "According to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq ranked 189th in per-capita GDP last year at $1,800. It came in nine slots below Sudan ($2,100), four above Haiti ($1,700) and five above North Korea (also $1,700)."
But back to the bright side, the gains are helping everyone:
"Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest eggs—which they are now spending. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets."
My original point holds in many respects. The lack of stability -- again, arguably caused by the rush to open government -- means there is no banking system, and that investors are incredibly wary.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Statistically and theoretically, it's very unlikely a democracy will take root in poverty, and forcing governmental openness hurts stability. The unabating violence is a warning sign that we should take a few steps backward -- closed societies are better than failed states.
So this Newsweek story is great news -- Iraq's economy is booming, indicating that either (A) the occupation really has been doing a good job of economic development, even if the efforts aren't public or (B) the Iraqi people more resourceful than we give them credit for.
From the story:
"Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all."
If 4 percent is more accurate, Iraq has a long way to go before prosperity will cause stability. As I wrote in TNI, "According to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq ranked 189th in per-capita GDP last year at $1,800. It came in nine slots below Sudan ($2,100), four above Haiti ($1,700) and five above North Korea (also $1,700)."
But back to the bright side, the gains are helping everyone:
"Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest eggs—which they are now spending. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets."
My original point holds in many respects. The lack of stability -- again, arguably caused by the rush to open government -- means there is no banking system, and that investors are incredibly wary.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Joining the 'list of perfect albums' club
At the behest of my roommate Jim Antle, I've decided to compile a list of some perfect albums -- ones where every song is outstanding, the style is fresh, etc. It's more extensive than Jim's, but I honestly do like listening to all of these straight through.
Bear in mind these aren't necessarily my absolute favorite albums, but they're ones that popped into my head where I wouldn't want to change a single note.
Here goes:
Guns N' Roses -- Use Your Illusion I & II (and Appetite for Destruction)
Marilyn Manson -- Mechanical Animals (and Golden Age of Grotesque)
Bone Thugs-N-Harmony -- E 1999 Eternal
A Perfect Circle -- Thirteenth Step
Eminem -- The Marshall Mathers LP
Pink Floyd -- The Wall
Disturbed -- Believe
Nine Inch Nails -- The Downward Spiral (actually like The Fragile better, but it's a little bloated)
Nick Drake -- Pink Moon
Red Hot Chili Peppers -- By the Way (and Stadium Arcadium)
Radiohead -- OK Computer (and Kid A)
Pantera -- Vulgar Display of Power
Mars Volta -- Francis the Mute
Emperor -- IX Equilibrium
Judas Priest -- Painkiller
Notorious B.I.G. -- Ready to Die
Korn -- See You on the Other Side
Iron Maiden -- Brave New World (and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son)
Aerosmith -- Pump
Bon Jovi -- New Jersey
Megadeth -- Cryptic Writings
AC/DC -- Live (or Back in Black, if you insist on no compilations)
Jay-Z -- Reasonable Doubt
...and I'm out of breath. Oh hell with it: Poison -- Flesh & Blood. Poke fun if you must.
Bear in mind these aren't necessarily my absolute favorite albums, but they're ones that popped into my head where I wouldn't want to change a single note.
Here goes:
Guns N' Roses -- Use Your Illusion I & II (and Appetite for Destruction)
Marilyn Manson -- Mechanical Animals (and Golden Age of Grotesque)
Bone Thugs-N-Harmony -- E 1999 Eternal
A Perfect Circle -- Thirteenth Step
Eminem -- The Marshall Mathers LP
Pink Floyd -- The Wall
Disturbed -- Believe
Nine Inch Nails -- The Downward Spiral (actually like The Fragile better, but it's a little bloated)
Nick Drake -- Pink Moon
Red Hot Chili Peppers -- By the Way (and Stadium Arcadium)
Radiohead -- OK Computer (and Kid A)
Pantera -- Vulgar Display of Power
Mars Volta -- Francis the Mute
Emperor -- IX Equilibrium
Judas Priest -- Painkiller
Notorious B.I.G. -- Ready to Die
Korn -- See You on the Other Side
Iron Maiden -- Brave New World (and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son)
Aerosmith -- Pump
Bon Jovi -- New Jersey
Megadeth -- Cryptic Writings
AC/DC -- Live (or Back in Black, if you insist on no compilations)
Jay-Z -- Reasonable Doubt
...and I'm out of breath. Oh hell with it: Poison -- Flesh & Blood. Poke fun if you must.
NY police kill axe-wielding 62-year-old
Despite all the premature marching about the bachelor party police shooting (there's still plenty of possibility the cops did nothing wrong there), I doubt this story will set off the wave of anti-police sentiment some hope/fear.
Why? The "victim," judging by his name, was white.
Anatoly Dimitriev, 62, held his son hostage with an axe, then fled his home. New York officers chased him, and when he lunged at them, one shot him.
The AP rushes to put this in the context of the Bell shooting outside the strip club, making reference to the marches and quoting an officer urging calm.
First of all, this seems compeletely within police procedure. Cops can use one degree of force higher than that being used against them. If someone threatens them with a knife, club, etc., they can use firepower. The officer may have saved his own life, depending on just how close the man with the axe got.
As usual, we'll have to wait for more facts to be sure whether this was justified.
Second, lest anyone think I'm just playing the race card, and that Al Sharpton and his ilk will be concerned about a white criminal shot, let's look at some of the things NYC marchers said to Reuters today:
"This must stop. They have been killing us for too long," said Michelle Bethea, a 51-year-old New York legal assistant. "The black people of America are treated like dirt. Our kids don't live to see 21 because of the people that are supposed to protect us. It doesn't make sense."
And:
"The police have done this far too many times, they're killing too many of our black men. Every time something goes wrong the first thing they do is to pull out their gun," said Terry Hendrickson, 37, a student, from Morristown, New Jersey.
It was a "day of black outrage."
These are race-baiters, and they see every incident involving a black person as an instance of racism. They won't care or protest much for someone named Anatoly. The assumption is all the more amusing in the strip club shooting -- the officer who fired the first shot was black.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Why? The "victim," judging by his name, was white.
Anatoly Dimitriev, 62, held his son hostage with an axe, then fled his home. New York officers chased him, and when he lunged at them, one shot him.
The AP rushes to put this in the context of the Bell shooting outside the strip club, making reference to the marches and quoting an officer urging calm.
First of all, this seems compeletely within police procedure. Cops can use one degree of force higher than that being used against them. If someone threatens them with a knife, club, etc., they can use firepower. The officer may have saved his own life, depending on just how close the man with the axe got.
As usual, we'll have to wait for more facts to be sure whether this was justified.
Second, lest anyone think I'm just playing the race card, and that Al Sharpton and his ilk will be concerned about a white criminal shot, let's look at some of the things NYC marchers said to Reuters today:
"This must stop. They have been killing us for too long," said Michelle Bethea, a 51-year-old New York legal assistant. "The black people of America are treated like dirt. Our kids don't live to see 21 because of the people that are supposed to protect us. It doesn't make sense."
And:
"The police have done this far too many times, they're killing too many of our black men. Every time something goes wrong the first thing they do is to pull out their gun," said Terry Hendrickson, 37, a student, from Morristown, New Jersey.
It was a "day of black outrage."
These are race-baiters, and they see every incident involving a black person as an instance of racism. They won't care or protest much for someone named Anatoly. The assumption is all the more amusing in the strip club shooting -- the officer who fired the first shot was black.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
