The thieving bastards over at the RIAA have been trying to find any way they can to punish everybody except the thieving bastards that are their teen customers for a while now. The thieving bastards (RIAA edition) have tried to make it illegal for you to copy a song you purchased, even for backup, if they put any lame technological roadblock on there, even if it is just a one-letter password. If you even try to get past it, you’ve broken the law. Not because you’re using the thieving bastards‘ intellectual property in an illegal way, but because you defeated their “anti-circumvention device” to do it.

So, if you buy a tune from Napster and try to copy it onto a device they don’t allow, you’ve broken the law, even though the law says you can make a copy in any way you prefer for personal use. (Hey, it’s not like the artist is seeing any recompense from this anyway, that’s why the RIAA are thieving bastards.

So Representative John Doolittle (R-CA) helped pass this stupid legislation and didn’t think much of it until he bought an iPod. Then he realized that the legislation would make it illegal to put music from an encrypted CD onto his beloved iPod, rendering it useless.

So he’s teamed up with Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA), who represents the town of my birth, among others, and offered up H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2003.

Write your congresscritter and demand that they support this bill. It would not eliminate penalties for piracy, but make it legal for you to make personal copies for your own use. So the RIAA can carry on suing its thieving bastards it calls customers, labels can keep screwing artists (because they’re thieving bastards), and you can enjoy your music on your iPod, your Rio, or on a home-made Edison cylinder machine if you so choose.

Thanks to Reason‘s Hit & Run for the pointer.

As a little-known proponent of globalization, I’m rarely asked, “Sandy, you work in the Internet biz. Doesn’t it make it odd that you still support free trade, or is it just because your ox has yet to be gored?”

I’m glad you didn’t ask. Despite that, I’m going to answer the question. [sighs, mutterings of “we’re in for a long one”, shuffling of feet]

At the risk of becoming a shadow-blog, I’ll just cite this Tyler Cowen piece on India’s election, as it’s what triggered me to say a few things that have been on my mind about offshoring and globalization in general.

As far as offshoring goes, I’m in a somewhat exposed position: a Web programmer who doesn’t cater to clients who require me to have citizenship and a security clearance. I have been fearful for my job in the last few years, but my fears related more to the downturn in the U.S. economy and less to the threat that somebody with a nice suit and more hair than brains would replace me with an Indian.

I don’t doubt that in the short run many of my colleagues have lost and will lose jobs that are immediately replaced with cheaper Indian workers, in the long run (say the next two to three years) I’m not worried. Those jobs will either come back or new, better ones will be created. However, many jobs during the dot-com boom were the result of “irrational exuberance,” and the $70 to $100K per year HTML jockey jobs are never coming back. I gambled that taking a lower salary with a firm that is profitable would get me more job security, and I won that gamble. Now, I have to make sure my job doesn’t get offshored.

I’m not overly worried about that. Why?

Continue reading →

There are many folks around the Net saying that Nick Berg is the “first casualty of prisoner abuse.” I won’t bother linking to them, as I think you can find a truckload at any political, news, or other opinion site you visit.

I think, however, that they’re missing the point. Nick Berg was kidnapped before the torture photos came out. I’m pretty sure they were going to kill him anyway. Two words come to mind when I read their statement: “convenient excuse.”

The reason that Abu Ghraib and the torture/abuse/whatever that went on there is damaging is not because of the terrorist acts it will stir up. It’s damaging because non-violent muslims will be even less likely to speak up against the Islamicists. When the most prominent alternative to Islamicism is pictured doing horrible things, it’s not worth the criticism that you are Shaitan’s tool for speaking out against the Islamicists.

Nick Berg isn’t the first victim–the first victim was the Iraqi or the Pakistani or the Qatari or the Saudi who either voiced support or failed to condemn the terrorist’s murder of Mr. Berg, thus making it more acceptable to get new recruits.

Terrorists will do what they have always done, and they won’t stop. The only difference is how they are perceived by those they claim to be fighting for. The KKK is held in disgust by the vast majority of whites in America now. In the 1960s the KKK were the terrorists. They didn’t change, white America did.

So remember, poor Nick Berg was already a victim of Islamic terror. Muslim opinion was the victim of Abu Ghraib.

Brian Kieffer has a resolution for the libertarian dilemma.

So Ted Rall is at it again. You may remember his previous cartoon that got him into trouble by making fun of Daniel Perle’s wife for coming on TV after her husband had his throat cut by his captors in Pakistan. Well, he’s at it again, and this time, he’s ranting about…wait for it…Pat Tillman.

OK–say you’re a pacifist, opposed to any war whatsoever. Then you can criticize the war in Afghanistan and the lionization of anyone who goes there and is killed. But if your concern is that any war fought be legitimately against terrorism, then you can legitimately criticize the war in Iraq, but last time I looked, Afghanistan wasn’t in Iraq.

Rall is apparently unaware that there is a distinction between the two countries. He never refers to them separately. He also compares an occupying soldier getting shot to a suicide bomber or a kamikaze pilot…actually a more accurate analogy would be to a Soviet soldier in, well, Afghanistan being shot and lionized as a Hero of the Revolution, but I’m guessing Rall would find that comparison offensive.

What’s truly weird is that the cartoon and rant both suggest by conflation that Afghanistan has oil. Wow, that’s some George W. Bush-level geography. Hint, Mr. Rall: Basra isn’t in Afghanistan, it’s in Iraq. These are two separate places.

I believe our invasion of Iraq was unjustified according to the reasons that Bush gave for going in. However, I’m not in favor of just pulling out and letting it become another, well, Afghanistan, where rule of law is rare and Islamic extremists dominate the country. We broke it, we bought it.

But, in case anybody doubts this, I am 100% behind the war in Afghanistan, and I hope that we don’t lose Afghanistan in our bid to deal with Saddam Hussein. The U.N. has once again proved utterly ineffective and the E.U. is providing a tiny fraction of the aid to Afghanistan. So I don’t hold out much hope for them.

If Ted Rall can’t see that invading a country that was hiding Osama bin Laden was justified, then he needs to become a pacifist and condemn any war, anywhere, as opposed to those started by Bush.

Hey, Bush probably thought the sky over DC was predominantly blue today. I’m not going to argue it was lime green just because I disagree with Bush on most political issues.

Hmm…looks like you can eat at McDonald’s exclusively for 30 days and gain weight, lose weight, or stay about the same.

My hunch is that the latter two are easier because you can’t get milkshakes at McDonald’s anymore.

As an aside it’s pretty amazing that all we have to worry about these days are that our poor people have too many calories to eat. There are countries where they don’t, and DEY TOOK AHR JAHBS!

WTF?

The Army is recalling some 105mm light howitzers it lent to some ski resorts…not because it can’t afford to waste them when budgets are tight–but because they need them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We’re out of howitzers? OK, I can see that we might be light on some B-2s worldwide, even the specially-armored Humvees that the Pentagon is desperately ordering (despite questions about how long it took them to realize the need). But howitzers? Sure they may be $1 million per gun (though that seems steep), but the largest military in the world is fresh out, so much so that it has to go scrounging?

I don’t object in principle to not subsidizing the operations of some ski resorts–let them buy some surplus bulky howitzers and get special training and permits at their own expense–but how can we be out of what are really simple and basic weapons owned by almost every military in the world? Aside from the weight, are these high-tech super howitzers? If so, what were they doing at ski resorts?

I mean, I know that the three times we took a “peace dividend” plus the slashing Rumsfeld was doing before 9/11 (how I wish a Democrat would be brave enough to take responsibility for over-reducing the military during the Clinton years and then attack the Bush administration for being no better before 9/11) left the cupboards a bit bare, but we’ve been spending quite a bit recently.

Rumsfeld has proved he knows how to fight and win two very quick wars in places far removed from our usual supply lines. Give the man credit. But apparently he’s either not getting the budget the military really needs or just doesn’t get supply management. And if he needs more money, why does he say that everything’s fine, troop levels are fine, etc. etc. when asked? I don’t think the EPA administrator will argue his budget doesn’t need increasing.

Maybe somebody can explain to me how basic weapons like howitzers can be in short supply given the reach of our military (and the stocks we should have in mothballs after the height of the Reagan buildup), but until they do I’m kind of stunned. This isn’t the case of having the wrong thing (unarmored Humvees), this is a case of just not having the basic tools for a job.

Turns out the U.S. government also thinks its screeners are no better than the mall cops who went before.

The inspector general’s report, as well as a study by the GAO portrayed the TSA as an unresponsive, inflexible bureaucracy that is failing to provide an adequate level of security at airports.

But wait, you might argue, aren’t TSA personnel at least more professional and pleasant than their predecessors? A certain cancer patient doesn’t think so. The TSA is trying to blame private security, but it’s clear that at a minimum they colluded with the airline to deny a woman a flight because she “no longer looked like her photo.” You know, because she lost hair and weight.

I thought these guys were going to be so much better trained that nobody would ever be able to do anything bad again. I mean, after all, federal workers have such a reputation for greater competence than their private counterparts, which is why all food production, distribution, and preparation is done by the federal government in this country, because that’s simply too important a function to be left to the vagaries of the market.

Right?

So I just flew in from Qatar, and boy is my rear tired.

I’ll blog a little bit more about it (yes, Ginger, with pictures), but I just wanted to highlight a little absurdist French farce put on by British Airways for my benefit as I was leaving Qatar.

In addition to the main security screening, we underwent an additional screening with hand-search of carryons for the trip to Bahrain and eventually to London. Fair enough. The sign warning you of bad things in carryons (all of which of mine had passed inspection by the notoriously overprotective Transportation “Security” Agency), but explicitly said that safety razor blades were OK.

So the Qatari security guy picked up my razor blades and nail clippers and showed them to the BA agent, an Englishwoman. She said “No, no, that’s not allowed,” and confiscated them all, giving me a “you poor dear, you should have known bettter” look.

Now, the clippers did have a swing-out nail file, albeit blunt, so I could see how a casual glance (and connections to a secondhand black market in nail clippers) could cause one to confiscate it. However, what did I have offered once getting on to the plane?

A shaving kit complete with the same sort of razors.

Oh, British Airways, you are…a bunch of retards. I mean, seriously, you’re mentally deficient. You really have to work to be stupider than Tom Ridge and the TSA morons, but really, you’ve outdone yourself.

I guess inbreeding has its consequences, eh, Queenie?

If you think you can do better than the current or past administrations, get yer deficit on with this Federal Budget Simulator. I managed to create a surplus mainly on the backs of old people, the military, and agriculture. I might go back and redistribute to more heavily cut corporate subsidies while restoring some social security.

It’s harder than you think, though, and you have to be pretty ruthless. Sorry, Ruth, we just can’t afford you.

Thanks to Craig Newmark’s guest blogging on Marginal Revolution for the link.