It is Saturday afternoon and I’m spent. This week has been full of lows – and highs. Here is the brief rundown:
1. My Country – The lows: The election has confirmed my belief that conservatives are now in the wilderness. The Republican party got thumped in the election – and deservedly so. The only thing the Republicans didn’t lose was the ability to conduct Senate filibusters. Everything else was washed away in the tidal wave of anti-Bush sentiment. And if I could have voted up/down on Bush alone, I would have joined the masses. But I was unwilling to cede all power to the Democrats simply to send a message to the Republican party.
The highs: As I noted last week, the rejection of the current Republican party establishment is a GOOD THING. We need to purge ourselves of encumbrances like “party affiliation” and “reaching across the aisle” to embrace watered-down policies. Don’t misunderstand me. I am in favor of embracing our fellow Americans – even when we disagree. But let’s not be so willing to compromise our principles in order to be loved by all. The prophets of the Old Testament dd not worry about whether their message was accepted by their listeners (and readers). Rather, they spoke truth to power. And that is what the conservatives in exile must begin to do.
I think I may be writing a whole lot more about this in the future. But for now, know that I am both disheartened as well as elated. I don’t believe that conservatism has been rejected. Indeed, we haven’t seen real, honest-to-goodness conservatism for quite a while. So now is our chance to proclaim that truth.
In the meantime, I am so incredibly proud of my country. First, there was tremendous participation in this election. Second, we took one huge step towards erasing a legacy of social schisms. Our forefathers struggled about whether to include emancipation of slaves into our Declaration of Independence. The first step towards John Adams vision of equality came with the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln. The second step came with the US Civil War. The third step came with the civil rights efforts of the fifties (esp. the US Armed Forces) and the Civil Rights Act of the sixties. And the most recent step came with the election of an African American President. This was truly a remarkable election that every American should be proud of. It demonstrates all of the best things about America.
2. My Family – The lows: My middle daughter has been having a very tough time at school. I really don’t want to go through all of the details as this blog is publicly available – and her challenges are very private. But suffice it to say that she started the week very disheartened.
The highs: After several days of struggling with herself and seeking the counsel of others, she has come to some decisions. In candor, I do agree with her decisions. But I am still brokenhearted as I don’t know if she is fully invested in her decisions. Indeed, I suspect that she is only grudgingly accepting he unanimous counsel of others. But she has taken the first steps towards returning to the mission that God has set out for her. I’m praying that God speaks to her in intimate and affectionate ways. I’m praying that she sees His hand guiding the way – even while His other hand is lifting her up to keep her from stumbling.
My third daughter came home for the weekend. And she brought seven friends with her. They came to KC so they could experience First Fridays in the KC arts district . They were all thrilled to walk around art exhibits, munch on appetizers and act all artsy-fartsy. OK, that is harsh. I can’t truly appreciate the visual arts because of my poor eyesight. But I really shouldn’t discount the joy that some people receive when looking at a wonderful piece of art. Fortunately, they all enjoyed the art and the joi de vivre they experienced.
BTW, Bailey has some great friends. They spoke with us. They laughed with us. They discussed politics with us. And they ate our food. So a good time was had by all.
And the biggest family high point this week was my wife’s return to full-time employment. Three months ago, her previous employer had to terminate a large number of employees. And my wife was assigned to projects that were being reduced. So she was released. And while I know exactly how Cindy felt, I couldn’t really help bear her burden. She has had to bear a lot of the emotional burden herself.
But as of this past Monday, she is now fully employed. And her work is both more challenging and more rewarding than her previous assignments. In almost every way, she has been kicked up the work ladder. For this, I am so very grateful to a God that has met our family needs while He guided her to the right interviews with the right people. Now I’m paying for her success with a new team and a new company.
3. My Job – The lows: One of the projects that I was working on was halted. The software worked. The inter-corporation communications worked. But the product was still canned. And the basic reason for the project termination was the general economy today. Our key financial partner declined to under-write the loan instruments that were pivotal to the product. So the product has been suspended – at least for now.
The highs: While the one product was terminated, the overall system will be used for other products this season. So work proceeds. And even if it didn’t, I have so many other projects that I am working on. I’m not worried about my continued employment. Nor am I worried about my standing in the eyes of executive leadership. In many ways, I have the privilege of being considered a “go to” person in the organization. So I am quite pleased.
4. My Twitter Egosphere – The lows: About a week ago, I was reading a note from Jennifer Leggio (a freelance writer for Ziff-Davis) about her philosophy concerning following and unfollowing people on Twitter. Actually the article was about Qwitter, an app to track who quits following you (and what the last posted tweet was before they quit following you). It is a true vanity app.
Early in the week, I got a note from Qwitter that Jennifer had unfollowed me. Normally, I don’t care about who follows me. But this time, it actually struck a raw nerve. After everything else that happened this week, I actually felt a little upset that someone I respected had unfollwed me. I didn’t feel so bad that I sent Jennifer a note. But I did feel bad enough to tell Noah about it.
The highs: Noah sent a quick note to Jennifer and asked her what had happened. It turns out that I hadn’t offended her with anything I had said. Rather, she was having Twitter problems and inadvertently unfollowed a ton of people. So Jennifer sent me a very heart-warming note apologizing for unfollowing me. That was truly unexpected. But it occurred at the same time that everything else was swing upward as well. So this warm note and ego boost came when everything else was on an upswing.
5. My Social Media Metaverse – The lows: I have way too many social media networks that I am part of. The current list includes: Twitter, identi.ca, Friendfeed, Brightkite, Del.icio.us, Google Reader, Flickr, GoodReads, StumbleUpon, GMail, Jabber, GTalk, AIM, Live Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, Last.fm, Blip.fm, and a few other services. I am often overwhelmed by all of this. So I’ve focused on Friendfeed as my social media aggregator. And the folks from Friendfeed have now added the ability for Friendfeed posts to be sent to an IM account. In my case, I’ve decided to try this with my GTalk account.
The low associated with all this integration is that I have so much social media stuff and it is now funneling to one place – me. I can’t just turn stuff off. I have grown accustomed to the buzz. I hate being swamped. But I love being informed of all sorts of things at the same time. I have so many inputs now arriving at my frontal lobe. And every beep, tweet, blip and alert is begging for me to switch focus. It’s great to be connected. And it is a real pain to be connected. But as of now, I can’t imagine not being connected. I feel like an addict that just needs one more hit of stimulation. Arghhh.
The highs: After the addict comment, I don’t need to repeat the highs associated with social media and networking . But I am quite excited about the levels of integration that are starting to coalesce into something almost discernible. As everything begins to congregate through Friendfeed, the link to IM poses an amazing integration point. With XMPP based IM integration, it will be possible to set up processes that run on my system – and under my control. These processes can be intelligent agents that will consume XML from an XMPP server. And as XMPP and OpenID are starting to come closer to one another (see http://openid.xmpp.za.net/), the possibilities become quite mind-bending.
Whew. That list just skims the surface of highs/lows for this week. There really was so much more. But amidst all the sensory and emotional input that is causing my “virtual” schizophrenia , there is one thing that remains constant. No matter how much is going on in this world, I know that my God loves me. And I know that however I feel (whether high or low), nothing can separate me from that love.
Romans 8:38-39 – For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things yet to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Category: Politics
Welcome the Wilderness
We stand at a pivotal moment for all conservatives in America. In the past, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and pro-military Republicans banded together and elected Ronald Reagan as a standard-bearer for our vision. Since then, we have “held our noses” while voting for a string of moderates: President George H.W. Bush (in two elections), Bob Dole and two elections with President George W. Bush. [It is important to note that many conservatives thought they were electing a kindred spirit in George W. Bush. Time (and a few trillion dollar programs) has proven this hope to be quite misplaced.
But the true conservatives in America now have a chance to consider who they truly are – and what kind of future they will strive to build. It is time to reject the pleas of political party leaders who urge us to elect someone who is “acceptable enough” for them. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that we vote for Obama. Heaven forbid. Nor am I suggesting that we not vote for McCain. That choice must be made in the solitude of the voting booth. Instead, I want us to be prepared for a future that I fear awaits us.
In fairness, liberal Democrats have been waiting for their chance to shape the future of America. They have waited since Hubert Humphrey and since George McGovern. Carter was not a liberal Democrat. He was an ineffective moderate who was ill-prepared to lead this nation. And Clinton was definitely not a liberal Democrat. He was a calculating and politically successful pragmatist. And for the last eight (8) years, liberal Democrats have had to wait through successive Republican victories for their next chance. But now, liberals can rejoice as they are on the cusp of achieving a watershed change – albeit with a stealth candidate.
And conservatives should take heart from the example of the long-suffering liberal Democrats. Since Ronald Reagan left office, the Republican party has been led by moderates, pragmatists and more than a couple of scoundrels. Some might argue that there have been conservative Republicans in power. And this is true. But at the highest levels of government, conservatism has not been practiced for a very long time.
Indeed, it is absurd for anyone to think that George W. Bush was a conservative. He and his Administration have been responsible for several of the largest government expansions ever. This includes the following major “accomplishment”: the largest health care program ever (in the form of prescription drug coverage), and the largest governmental takeover of private property ever (in the form of the most recent mortgage bailouts).
Similarly, liberal Democrats have had to “hold their noses” while Clinton systematically dismantled the programs of the Great Society. They saw welfare programs disassembled in favor of pay-for-work programs. And liberals have seen affirmative action and social justice programs transformed into watered down versions of the original programs launched in the sixties.
On the cusp of the most dramatic shift in the political landscape since Reagan, conservative Republicans need to reflect upon what is still to be done – not what will be undone in a liberal administration. We need to be energized by the things they truly believe in. Indeed, we need to learn not to settle for “good enough.” We need to strive towards the unassailable goals of limited government and personal responsible. In my mind, the best palliative for a possible liberal victory is in knowing that we can survive exile under a “liberal tyrant” – just as we survived the tyrannies of George III. We can survive the tyrannies of a liberal Congress just as we survived the tyrannies of fascism and communism last century. And we can emerge from such an exile with a renewed fervor for the things that really matter.
In many ways, we must be forced to realize the errors of our ways. Like a repentant sinner sitting in the pews, the conservative culture in America must “step forward” and admit its sins. We must ask for forgiveness from our fellow Americans. Indeed, we have not given our best. We have been willing to settle for “good enough.” We have been willing to compromise our very essence. But that time is over. Like the repentant sinner, we must first confess – and then we must put our new-found commitment into action. We must decline the temptations to seek minor advances via compromise. Instead, we must stick to our principles and forge ahead – despite the short-term costs.
If we don’t win next Tuesday, let’s welcome the crucible of the wilderness. It is there where God molds prophets and leaders. We must seek to build a moral argument that was plainly understood by our founders: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” (Thomas Paine)
From Vanity to Transformative Energy
It has been invigorating – and startling – to see how social networking has been used during this election cycle. When our presidential campaign began (over two years ago), the pinnacle of Internet technology (in politics) was the static website, the email distribution list and the online cash register. Basically, it was a testament to first-generation web technologies. Yes, there were exceptions (like some of the forays of Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign). But the de rigeur Internet investments were fairly pedestrian.
Since the last presidential election cycle, there has been a whole lot of maturing that has occurred. First, the technology itself has matured. We have gone from unidirectional content publishing to multi-channel advertising and bi-directional communications and involvement. Today, a supporter can subscribe to any number of channels and/or feeds that interest them. Followers can: provide their email address, read a candidates’ positions published on a website (or on Facebook or MySpace), or even see speeches on YouTube. Most politicians have a presence on Twitter (or Friendfeed, if they are truly forward-thinking). In short, politicians have many ways of getting their message to current and future supporters.
And this is a great start. But to go from broadcasting information to building a community of involved activits, a candidate must successfully blend Web 2.0 technologies with some personal “connection” to his or her supporters.
Like Howard Dean before him, Barack Obama has been able to capitalize on personal charisma and a fundamental “distrust of the older generation” to build his support base. If you are active on Twitter, it doesn’t take long to see the “personal” attachment that people have with Obama – regardless of the positions that he espouses. Indeed, I have seen many “conservative” people who have decided to vote for Obama because he has “connected” with them on more than a policy level. In many ways, this sense of connectedness is the same thing that Ronald Reagan was able to do with the “Reagan Democrats” during the 1980 campaign.
On the flip-side, John McCain has had little success achieving a sense of connectedness with his supporters. Most of his supporters are not “connected” to him or the campaign. Rather, they currently support McCain because they oppose Obama. In many cases, Republicans support McCain as their second choice candidate; many Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani supporters are only grudging supporters of McCain. And in many ways, this is so reminiscent of the 1976 campaign where many conservatves only grudgingly supported the candidacy of Gerald Ford.
But there have been two events that have altered the course of the McCaign campaing. The first was the nomination of Sarah Palin as the party’s vice presidential candidate. In many ways, Sarah has been able to “connect” to dissatisfied and disillusioned Republicans. At the same time, she has been able to reach a number of independent voters. Much of this reach beyond the party failthful is due to her energy, vitality and personal attractiveness. Indeed, she has been able to reach many people on a personal level. Indeed, many of the GOP faithful talk about their support for her rather than their support of McCain.
The second event was the elevation of Joe the Plumber. Through an odd set of circumstances, an “everyman” in Ohio has captured the hearts of many Americans. Many folks see him (or the ideal he symbolizes) as someone who represents their interests. They saw an indifferent Obama making decisions that will fundamentally alter their futures. And many folks don’t like that. Uncertainty often breeds the kind of fear that can affect elections. And the Joe the Plumber issue has created a great deal of uncertainty about Obama.
Fundamentally, both events demonstrate the simple fact that people want to support the familiar. They want to connect with their leaders. When McCain can offers two surrogates for their need to connect, many folks will gravitate towards those surrogates. When Obama offers himself as the person that can relate to mainstream America, then the polls swing in his favor. In short, people want to connect with their leaders.
And modern technology is all about “connectedness” and community. When systems and technolgoies draw folks together, they foster this spirit of community. And most Americans will willingly invest in communities of shared interests – whether they be Sunday School classes, churches, local school booster clubs or even political parties. People want to belong. And they will work for that sense of belonging.
In many ways, the use of technology in politics has finally moved from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. In the first generation, technology was used to fulfill the vanity of the candidate (or his/her followers). But with the advent of social networking and Web 2.0, we are truly seeing involvement of the citizens – and unleashing of their effort and energies.
In the final analysis, we have been created with a need to join together and serve one another. The rock band Switchfoot says it well: “We were meant to live for so much more; have we lost ourselves?” There is a fundamental part of the human heart that needs to be part of something bigger than our own selfish interests. We want to tell our children and our grandchildren how we were part of something transformative. Indeed, I believe that this is part of what made “the greatest generation” so great: they overcame econmic hardships as well as the tyrranies of totalitarian dictators. They were transformed from their pety and selfish concerns into a community of shared purpose and vision.
In politics, we can reach beyond ourselves – if we try. And with technology, we can reach others in amazing and innovative ways. But it is not the method that matters. In the end, it is the message that must transform us. In our current election, I pray that everyone takes a step back and asks whether they are supporting the position or the package. If we are supporting the package, please understand that we are often disappointed when we unwrap a package and learn that it is not everything that we had hoped for. Nevertheless, the act of reaching beyond yourself is one of the most transformative acts you will ever intitiate.
So get involved. Think and pray about your vote. And always remember to be grateful for the awesome privilege of getting to decide your own future.
We're On A Mission From God
The past few weeks have been disheartening. While Harriet Miers is a fine lawyer and an able administrator, no one will ever know what kind of a constitutional jurist she will be. I hope that this odd footnote to history will be both a learning and a growing experience for her – and for us.
It’s time to move on – Jake and Elwood style!
I won’t recount the torrent of blog posts typified by folks like Hugh Hewitt or our spirited Captain. I could opine about this for quite some time. But that’s not what we need. We need a uniter and not a divider. And we are looking for the band to get back together.
I’ve missed the unity and the sense of purpose we have all felt. So it really is time to get the band back together. Like Jake and Elwood, we’ve done our time – and it wasn’t fun. It’s time to get the music playing. Yes, we will probably end up in a few country music cages (like the Judiciary Committee hearings), but it will be fun – and we’ll be back together again.
President Bush, I respectfully request that you resume your role as the uniter and not the divider. Bring the band back together and nominate someone who will unite the band. We respect and honor everything you’ve accomplished thus far. And we will stand behind you. But please nominate a strict originalist. Don’t appoint a legislator. And don’t appoint a stealth candidate. Please appoint someone with a clear record and a firm and unwavering voice. We will support you. You made the right choice regarding bringing democracy to the Middle East. And you stood fast despite the withering criticism from the left – and from our allies. But you chose wisely and properly – and we supported you because of your firm resolve and moral clarity. We pledge ourselves to do so again. Bring the band back together.
-CyclingRoo-
Tags: The Blues Brothers , SCOTUS
We’re On A Mission From God
The past few weeks have been disheartening. While Harriet Miers is a fine lawyer and an able administrator, no one will ever know what kind of a constitutional jurist she will be. I hope that this odd footnote to history will be both a learning and a growing experience for her – and for us.
It’s time to move on – Jake and Elwood style!
I won’t recount the torrent of blog posts typified by folks like Hugh Hewitt or our spirited Captain. I could opine about this for quite some time. But that’s not what we need. We need a uniter and not a divider. And we are looking for the band to get back together.
I’ve missed the unity and the sense of purpose we have all felt. So it really is time to get the band back together. Like Jake and Elwood, we’ve done our time – and it wasn’t fun. It’s time to get the music playing. Yes, we will probably end up in a few country music cages (like the Judiciary Committee hearings), but it will be fun – and we’ll be back together again.
President Bush, I respectfully request that you resume your role as the uniter and not the divider. Bring the band back together and nominate someone who will unite the band. We respect and honor everything you’ve accomplished thus far. And we will stand behind you. But please nominate a strict originalist. Don’t appoint a legislator. And don’t appoint a stealth candidate. Please appoint someone with a clear record and a firm and unwavering voice. We will support you. You made the right choice regarding bringing democracy to the Middle East. And you stood fast despite the withering criticism from the left – and from our allies. But you chose wisely and properly – and we supported you because of your firm resolve and moral clarity. We pledge ourselves to do so again. Bring the band back together.
-CyclingRoo-
Tags: The Blues Brothers , SCOTUS
This Blogger Votes – Reluctantly
I have waited for a very long time before posting my opinion on the nomination of Harriet Miers as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. With the nomination very much in doubt – even before the hearings – I have held my tongue. But I am finally starting feel my spine stiffen and my hackles are starting to stand up. So maybe it’s time to speak out. After all, the gauntlet has been laid down. The good folk over at The Truth Laid Bear have put up a blogger opinion poll regarding Miers nomination. And the final straw that has motivated my opining on the subject came from George Will’s column this morning.
So what does the Roo think about Ms. Miers and her nomination to SCOTUS?
First things first. The President proposes, Congress disposes. Only President George W. Bush has the Constitutional authority to nominate. And the Constitution provides no limitations on such nominees. So Bush should nominate whomever he chooses. It is not my choice to make. And the last five years have taught me to trust President Bush’s judgement on most matters. So the President has discharged his responsibility. And the Senate will advise and possibly consent.
But I always have the ability and responsibility to voice my opinion. If I were the President, what would I do? Who would I nominate?
I would pick a person of unassailable intellect. This nominee will serve for a very long time. Let’s ponder the question of tenure for just a moment. Most conservatives have chaffed at the derailed appointment of Robert Bork. If Bork had won confirmation, he would still be serving on the bench. And his opinions might well have changed the course of history. So this nominee’s writings will form the heart of American jurisprudence for a very long time. It is incumbent upon the Prsident to select a nominee whose opinions will be able to withstand the vagaries of the liberal intelligensia – members of which may someday serve beside this nominee.
I would pick a person of strong foundation. Yes, that means that I would prefer someone with a steadfast faith. But it also means that I would pick someone whose core rests not on him or herself but on something external and eternal. People with an external foundation will not allow shifting tides and public opinion to sway and/or change their judicial temperment.
I would pick a person with a quiet and collaborative spirit. In the combative parts of my heart, I would want a firebrand. But that is not what we need. We need men and women who will willingly and affably work with people that they may disagree with. Why? Our nation is founded upon the notion that all opinions are valuable. So any Supreme Court justice must be able to collaborate and/or respectfully disagree with his or her brethren – in the same way that we must work with those who disagree with us.
I don’t know whether Harriet Miers meets my first requirement (unassailable intellect). Her public writings do not seem to support the proposition that she is a person of unassailable intellect. But I do know that she is smart. You can’t rise to the levels that she has risen to without some degree of grey matter. So I cannot endorse Harriet Miers until I hear from her – since her writings are not going to be released for review. So on my first requriement, I am skeptical, but willing to hear what is revealed in the hearings.
On my second requirement (steadfastness and personal humility), I have no guage with which to measure Harriet Miers. I will trust George Bush’s opinion on this matter. However, I feel very unsettled on this point. I have seen enough changes in her past that concern me. But this is one where the President has worked with her for years. She gets my support on this fact alone.
Finally, is Harriet a uniter and not a divider? What a loaded question. As presented, Harriet Miers nomination is a divider and not a uniter. But that is circumstantial spin. She seems to be quite affable and collaborative. The people that have worked with her are all amazingly complimentary of her ability to work with others to get things done. This includes her colleagues in her law firm as well as those in the Texas Lottery. So Ms. Miers gets a tentative nod from me on this point.
Bottom Line: If I were President, I could not pick her. If I were a Senator, I would have to wait and see if she has the tone and tenor of a Supreme Court justice. But as a citizen, I am deeply concerned that I know so very little about this nominee. I want to see the Court change. I voted to see the Court change. And I worked on a campaign to see the Court change. But no one can provide me the information necessary to assure me that this nominee will change the Court. BTW, the Democratic Senators are in the exact same position. They don’t want to see change – but they don’t have enough information to say that she would change the precedents that they hold so dear.
So how will I answer the call to all bloggers? George Will said it best. He notes that this nomineee will be “a nominee for a lifetime position making unappealable decisions of enormous social impact.” With this in mind, I could not vote for this nominee – at least, not yet. For TTLB, “I oppose the Miers nomination.”
-CyclingRoo-
Tags: Harriet Miers , SCOTUS
Cable Wins – Do You Lose?
In a second major decision this morning, the Supreme Court has overturned a lower court rulings and handed cable providers (and the FCC) a clear victory. While telphone companies must continue to provide equal access to their infrastructure, cable companies need not follow the same guidelines. Indeed, the justification for this decision hinges on the fact that cable companies are providing content as well as bandwidth.
Does this mean that telephone companies can close off equal access once they provide IPTV services over an xDSL infrastructure? Only time will tell.
-CyclingRoo-
Wow. The comments are really flying on sites like Slashdot. One of the most interesting observations comes from kwilliamyoungatl who said, “They ruled on the Telecom *Act*. Congress can change the act with a majority vote and the signature of the president.” That’s right. So how quickly before the phone companies and cable competitors lobby for changes?
Hollywood Wins – Grokster Loses
“One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright … is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses,” Justice David Souter wrote.
And with those words, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a lower court ruling and gave Hollywood a significant victory in its fight against illegal distribution of copyrighted material.
And now, the Court will have to define the term “promoting its use to infringe copyright.” But for now, it is clear that Grokster was promoting infringement. I wonder how broadly this will be interpreted by lower courts.
Round 1 goes to Hollywood. But will they be able to swing this stick very broadly? More to follow…
-CyclingRoo-
Sysadmins Held Responsible in Australia
I got in the office this morning and checked my morning news feeds. I found an article at ZDNet Australia that really piqued my interest. Apparently, the federal court has overturned a lower court ruling and is holding a couple of sysadmins (from Swiftel) liable for infringing music found on their servers.
This is outrageous! Or is it. Let’s forget about the **AA and our visceral hatred of the position they hold. Now let’s consider this. If a theft ring was running shop out of an apartment complex, would we feel bad that the landlords were held responsible for the tenants storing stolen goods? And what if the landloards had been told by the government that the theft ring was in operation on their property?
Or how about this one… Are we incensed when members of a corporate board are held responsible for the illicit acts of their subordinates? Can and should the board be held responsible? In the United States, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill indeed holds execuitves personally liable for their corporations.
Alright. Those are extreme examples. And I do not mean to equate these sysadmins with derelict landloards or inefficient (and/or negligent) corporate officers. But you do have to ask the question whether it is appropriate to hold folks criminally liable for acts committed under their “watch.”
I don’t know the particulars of this case, but I do know that our nation routinely holds those in authority responsible for the actions of people under their purview. And just as importantly, if these sysadmins did receive appropriate notification of the alleged copyright infringements, then they really should have taken some kind of action to protect the rights of the copyright holder as well as those of the alleged infringers.
I guess the real question should be the following: what kind of notification did the sysadmins actually receive? At the same time, what kind of “protection” do the site tenants deserve? Back to our analogy, should the landlord have the right to enter the site and “censor” items in the tenants residence? If so, under whose authority can or should they act? Should they act on a simple claim from the neighbors? Or do they have an obligation to protect their tenants until the tenants are proven guilty?
Hmmm. Interesting questions. But these questions should not in any way impair the free use of distribution software itself. Just because something can be abused does not give the government to forebear all uses. Think of it. Web traffic can convey illicit content. Does that mean that http is “bad” and must be controlled? Of course not. In our society, we must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And just because one automobile owner is convicted of vehicular manslaughter does not give the government the right to ban all use of automobiles because they might be used in some future homicide.
-CyclingRoo-
Tags: BitTorrent
"The World Is Flat"
I just finished watching Thomas Friedman on the Sunday morning talk-a-thon. He was pitching his new book (The World Is Flat). As usual, Mr. Friedman talked about broad issues in compelling fashion.
While I haven’t read the book yet, I was struck by a few things that he said. First, he explained what the “flat world” is all about. He starts with a question. What will historians in 2020 say was the most influential event this century? Would it be the 9/11 terror attacks and their aftermath? Or would it be the globalization of the world? In his treatise, Friedman asserts that the Internet and interconnectivity have “flattened” the world. Today, it makes no difference whether you live in New York, Silicon Valley or Bangalore. If you are bright and connected, you can live anywhere. Indeed, the world is much more of a flat playing field. Today, we no longer compete with fellow Americans. We must squarely compete with talented and gifted people from around the globe.
Second, he noted that America is facing four key deficits.
1. The energy deficit
2. The education deficit
3. The budget deficit
4. The “ambition” deficit
When I heard this, I readily understood and heartily agreed with the first three issues. But I wasn’t certain what Mr. Friedman meant with his fourth point. The moderator stepped in and asked what I was thinking. What is the “ambition” deficit? Mr. Friedman called it the “Olympic basketball deficit.” The U.S. team went to the Olympics believing that it was the most talented team in the world. And rather than work hard and strive for excellence, the team displayed an apparent attitude of entitlement. Well, as we all know, we were lucky to earn a bronze medal.
Whether intentional or not, this illustration struck a resonating chord with me. All around me, I see people that believe they are entitled to the grand things that they possess. They act as if these things are deserved rather than earned. And, truth be told, I must say that my own “thoughts and deeds” often demonstrate this attitude of entitlement. God forgive me when I have accepted your blessings and made them my entitlements. May I (and this nation) once again return to a place of thankfulness. And may I also remember that I must strive for greatness, not expect it to arrive at my doorstep.
-CyclingRoo-
Tags: Politics