quick! hide under this rock!

Apparently web sites are kind of like dominos. Once one goes down, they all go down. Such is the case for poor Mike Klander, who’s blog was taken down earlier this week. Now his professional site (www.klander.ca & www.mikeklander.com) has been deleted as well, possibly because news agencies were using the contact information located on the page to bug him for interviews. They quite possibly were also checking on his list of clients to get their reaction to his recent 15 minutes of fame.

Meanwhile, as Liberal officials continue to downplay his importance to the Liberal Party, Mr. Klander seemed to have no difficulty boosting his own importance on his professional website. Up until last night, it used to proudly declare (emphasis mine):

With over fifteen years of experience in federal and provincial politics, Mike Klander brings with him an innate understanding of Canada’s political process and an extensive national network. Prior to establishing his own government relations practice Mike held several senior positions within the Liberal Party.

As a senior political organizer Mike played a significant role in building Paul Martin’s Leadership organization in Ontario. Prior to joining Martin’s team, Mike helped build a national organization for Brian Tobin and also served as his Campaign Manager in Ontario.

As Executive Director of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) Mike was responsible for managing the day to day affairs of the Federal Liberal Party in Ontario. In that capacity he served as Ontario Campaign Director during the 2000 Federal Election Campaign. In his eight years with the organization he held several other positions including Field Organizer, and Director of Field Operations.

An organizer in every federal and provincial election campaign since 1988 Mike has developed a comprehensive understanding of the political process and how government operates. Building on that experience, he established Klander and Associates; an independent government relations practice representing clients both in Ottawa and at Queen’s Park.

Mike has served and continues to assist numerous clients including Research in Motion, Inco, BFI Canada, Imperial Tobacco Canada, The Greater Toronto Home Builders Association, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Air Canada Pilots Association.

As a volunteer Mike sits on the Board of the Ontario Special Olympics and Rose Cherry’s Home for Kids. He is also Executive Vice-President of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario).

He holds an Honours degree in Political Science from McMaster University.

I particularly enjoy his “comprehensive understanding of the political process and how government operates” since I believe he is exactly right. Politicians, by their very nature, are double-minded, portraying one face to the public, and their TRUE face to a select few insiders. I pray that more politicians would find hope in James words, “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” (James 4:8) We ALL need to take that advice, so don’t think for an instant that I’m putting myself above or outside that counsel, because I need it just as much as anyone. Politicians just happen to be more public than others.

This is actually Mike Klander’s second biography on his website. The earlier one was a little more comprehensive and reinterated the word “integrity” more than once:

Mike Klander – Dedication and Integrity

Whether as a Campaign Manager, Election Day Chair, Party Staffer, Policy Director of the Ontario Young Liberals, Executive Director of LPC(O), Ontario Campaign Director (2000), or a Leadership Campaign Organizer, Mike Klander has demonstrated consistent integrity and versatility in the dispatch of his duties. Mike has proven his ability to create unity, inspire energy, engender trust and deliver results with our Party’s membership, elected officials, and voters at large. Indeed, for over fifteen years, he has been essential in building our Party and keeping it strong.

Mike Klander – Experience and Ability

After fifteen years of dedicated service in federal and provincial politics, Mike Klander brings much to the table. With an innate understanding of the Liberal Party, and an extensive national network, Mike offers our members experience and real ability.

As a senior political organizer for Paul Martin, Mike played a significant role in building Martin’s Leadership organization in Ontario. Prior to joining Martin’s team, Mike worked to build a national organization for Brian Tobin. Throughout all his leadership activities, Mike demonstrated real integrity, building bridges and promoting Party unity.

As Executive Director of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario), Mike was responsible for managing the day to day affairs of the Federal Liberal Party in this province. During that period, he also served as Ontario Campaign Director during the 2000 Federal Election Campaign.

As an organizer in every federal and provincial election since 1988, Mike has developed a comprehensive understanding of the Liberal Party, the political process and government affairs. Building on that experience, he established Klander and Associates in 2002, working as an independent public affairs consultant representing clients both in Ottawa and at Queen’s Park.

Originally from Hamilton, Mike now resides in Toronto with his Fiance Charrissa and her daughter Mcquiag, and Bailey, their 4 month-old chocolate lab. He holds an Honours degree in Political Science from McMaster University

It’s only a matter of time before Mike Klander’s name disappears from the net altogether. I’m sure he’s already contacted the webmaster of www.rosecherryshome.ca to get his name removed from the board of directors list. The last post on Mike’s blog before he deleted it sums things up nicely…

It would appear that more people viewed my blog than the small circle of friends it was intented for. I apologize if anyone was offended by my comments…they were meant to be in jest.

Reminds me of another passage of scripture: “Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I was only joking!” (Proverbs 26:18-19)

mike klander? who’s that?

Damage control is now in full gear as the Liberals try to downplay Klander’s role in the Liberal party. Stephen Heckbert’s response has been recorded in many news sources, including the Ottawa Citizen

Klander’s blog was personal and did not reflect the view of the federal Liberals, said Stephen Heckbert, a spokesman for the Liberal campaign in Ontario.

“I think he recognized that there’s some things that are outside the bounds of good taste,” Heckbert said. “And I think then it came to a decision that it would be better for the party and for him if he were to step down.”

Klander was a volunteer and did not play an official role for the Liberals during this campaign, Heckbert said, adding he has apologized to Chow.

“Obviously, this is something the Liberal Party of Canada doesn’t condone. It’s our view that partisan rhetoric has its limits.”

This “volunteer” who didn’t play an “official role” seemed to have a high enough profile on the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) website though, his stunning mug appearing below the Prime Minister’s:

The webpage has since been updated, Klader’s photo removed, and the Vice President’s position listed as “Vacant.” I have nothing against the Liberal party, really. I think they’ve done a pretty good job with a lot of things, actually. I generally vote for “people” not “parties” so Liberal, Conservative, NDP… I look at the party’s overall worldview of course, but I personally look to the people as my ultimate decision maker. I thought I should clarify that so people didn’t get the idea that I was an anti-Liberal or something. I’ve voted Liberal more than a few times

www.Can’tKeepMyBigMouthShut.com

The hits just keep on coming as yet another Liberal advisor demonstrates the Principle of Government Verbosity (PGV). Mathematicians use the formula “V = P(T x t)²” but in layman’s terms it means that the quantity of verbal-diarrhea is directly proportional to the total governmental power multiplied buy the square of the time your party’s been in power multiplied by the time you’ve personally been in power. To simplify it even more, the longer you sit on the throne, the more stuff starts coming out both ends.

We’ve already drawn attention to the dynamic Liberal Advisor duo Scott Reid and John Duffy in a previous post who seem to believe families who draw money from social services are more apt to purchase “beer & popcorn” than child care. Well, the hits just keep on coming. Now Liberal advisor Mike Klander has demonstrated his grasp of the media subtleties involved in politics. As his website, www.klander.ca (aka www.mikeklander.com) proudly boasts:

Mike Klander is a highly specialized and well respected government relations consultant assisting clients both at Queen’s Park in Ontario and at the Federal Government level in Ottawa.

Whether managing a crisis, proposing a new initiative, monitoring legislation, or simply building political relationships, Klander and Associates can help your business or association navigate through government.

If Mike Klander is your navigator, then I suggest you start sizing up your other passengers and figure out which one you should eat first as you find yourself stranded on a icy rock in the middle of the North Atlantic. Our friend Mike, you see, decided that it would be a great idea to have a personal blog where he could air his opinions. Our friend Mike decided to keep his website at klander.blogspot.com under his real name. Our friend Mike even had the ingenious idea of naming his personal blog after his professional website, “MIKEKLANDER.COM.” Our friend Mike also decided to be crass, use profane language, make slurs against homosexuals, and compare NDP candidate Olivia Chow to a dog. Guess what our friend Mike is doing now? Yes, that’s right, he’s deleting his page, apologizing to everyone (and their dog) and resigning.

Links to the story:

• The Globe & Mail
• The Toronto Star
• The National Post
• MacLean’s

I hereby offer this warning to all Liberal advisors: SHUT UP! Just be quiet! Advise your Liberal party colleagues in private, and then remove your left sock, and place it firmly in your mouth. Don’t say anything else, ever. In fact, when you go home to your spouse and kids, keep the sock in there… you wouldn’t want one of them sharing your opinions either. Oh, and don’t have friends either. Poor ol’ Mike has a friend by the name of Chris Wakelin who also had a blog on blogspot in which he backed up his pal Mike last September with this stunning endoresement:

As you may know, my good friend Mike Klander (www.klander.ca) is running for exec V.P of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario). Given Mike’s experience as a staffer and an executive director, I cannot think of a more qualified person for the job. He understands the need to extend bridges to those shut out since Leadership, get accurate membership lists and all that other [CENSORED] that the average member needs. Besides that he has a kick[CENSORED] watch that will tell you the weather (temperature and barometric pressure). He over paid for it but assures me he would be more frugal with party funds. The bottom line I am supoorting even though he fired me. That should say something. hahaha just kidding, I was laid off. Go to [CENSORED]. (Profanity censored by Pete)

Chris has since deleted his blog. I’m not sure if deleting his blog had anything to do with Mike’s current blog-controversy, but it was probably a smart idea anyway. Liberals – saying what needs to be said, and then apologizing and resigning for saying it.

truth decay

So I’m reading the news this morning, and I was struck by two stories that should weigh heavily on those who have a Christian worldview. The first, not surprisingly, was the court case in Dover, Pennsylvania, where the local school board voted to include “intelligent design” (ID) in the grade 9 biology curriculum in area schools. Now, first of all, the Dover School Board went about everything the wrong way, and did a lot of things that were seemingly an attempt to hide their ulterior motives. They were coming from a particular Christian worldview, and they should have simply admitted that fact, rather than trying to veil it. If you’re trying to proclaim God’s truth, then don’t use obfuscation to smuggle it in. I know, I know, they were just playing the game as it was laid before them by the secular world. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

That aside, I was amazed at the judge’s clear bias, and blatant animosity in his official ruling. He made no attempt to suppress his contempt for the ID side of the equation. Here’s a couple choice nuggets from his ruling (Complete ruling in PDF is here):

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Two comments here: Firstly, how can a judge make a ruling as to what does and does not constitute “science.” Judge John E. Jones III has effectively determined that there is to be no scholarly dialogue on these two theories, since he has ruled that one has no basis in science. Secondly, ID cannot uncouple itself from religion? An identical argument can be made against evolutionism, which has long been the rallying cry for anti-theists. This is why American Atheists have an Evolution versus Creationism web page at http://www.atheists.org/evolution/ where creationists are described as “wilfully irrational people.” About.com’s atheism page offers quick links to articles bashing Creationism. Atheists Online will happily sell you a T-Shirt that has an Ichthys with legs (a frequent evolutionist mockery of a Christian symbol), with the clever quip, “The Other Fish Doesn’t Have A Leg To Stand On.” The Atheist Alliance Web Center offers a lengthy collection of articles on evolution (http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/AB-Evolution_Rsrcs.html).

Atheism is a religion, my friends. It’s not “aloof,” and it’s most definitely not impartial. It proactively asserts that there is no “supreme being” and ferociously attacks anyone who believes such “nonsense.” Despite the fact that the vast majority of humans on this planet believe in some form of “intelligent design,” be it by a god or gods (monotheistic, polytheistic or pantheistic), and even some who believe intelligent design in the sense that life on this planet was initiated by aliens, the atheists still claim to have some special insight – a unique revelation about the universe around them that renders all dissenting views as immature superstition. Interestingly enough, even Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, frustrated by the consistent failure to experimentally prove the spontaneous origin of life, turned to intelligent design in his paper “Directed Panspermia,” co-authored with Leslie Orgel (pdf of paper here). If intelligent design “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents” then apparently nobody told the self-proclaimed atheist, Dr. Crick. Poor guy. He had no idea he was a religious fanatic. In that light, one could assert that it is the atheist, not the theist, who has equated intelligent design and creationism, and therefore made ID and religion synonymous. Here’s another beauty from Judge Jones:

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

And Darwin’s theory is testable? What these folks don’t seem to get is that there is a universe of difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. This idea that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer period of time is a non sequitur. We can absolutely test that a species of plant will adapt to new environmental factors – that’s micro-evolution. We cannot test if a fish will become an amphibian given certain environmental factors – that’s macro-evolution, and that’s what the discussion is about. Judge Jones later claims “Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general.” Yet, Judge Jones has made those same bedrock assumptions – that macro and micro-evolution are synonymous, and therefore testable and re-creatable in a laboratory – an assumption that is patently false. Judge Jones closes the door on further discussion in his final judgement:

As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. To preserve the separation of church and state [...], we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.

Any attempt at “blind justice” is completely absent from the ruling. He clearly rules that evolution is a “scientific theory” and intelligent design is “religious,” with the implication that teaching such an alternate theory goes hand-in-hand with denigrating or disparaging evolutionism. Note the inconsistency in the ruling. First he says that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, and then rules against “requiring” the teaching of intelligent design. Which is it? Is it illegal to require it be taught, or is it illegal if it’s taught at all? If the latter, then I fear the worst for the Pennsylvanian public school system if it is deemed illegal to expose children to the plethora of views and held by the various citizens of this small blue marble we’re floating around on.

I would, in no wise, pick on my American friends without pointing a finger at my own country as well. Keeping in step with the denigration of any standard of morality, the Supreme Court of Canada has overturned a conviction of a Quebec “swinger’s club” owner who was charged with operating a “bawdy house.” A “bawdy house” is defined in the Criminal Code of Canada as, as a place kept, occupied, or resorted to “by one or more persons for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency.” The court ruled that, since there was no prostitution, and everything was private and between consenting adults, it didn’t constitute “indecency” and therefore was not a bawdy house under the Code. Now, overturning the conviction is not the big deal in this case – it’s the new definition of how one measures “indecency.” The court defined the problem in these terms (complete ruling in PDF here):

“Indecency has two meanings, one moral and one legal. Our concern is not with the moral aspect of indecency, but with the legal. The moral and legal aspects of the concept are, of course, related. Historically, the legal concepts of indecency and obscenity, as applied to conduct and publications, respectively, have been inspired and informed by the moral views of the community. But over time, courts increasingly came to recognize that morals and taste were subjective, arbitrary and unworkable in the criminal context, and that a diverse society could function only with a generous measure of tolerance for minority mores and practices. This led to a legal norm of objectively ascertainable harm instead of subjective disapproval.“

Here we see in plain, clear terms what I’ve been saying all along about the slippery slope of moral standards. Once the standard becomes “as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody” then any hope of maintaining any degree of moral standards is gone. Why? Because “hurt” in and of itself is a relative term. Does polygamy hurt anyone? Isn’t it marriage between three or more consenting adults. Why can’t we have ménage-a-trios marriages, now that homosexual unions are recognized as legal marriages. If all three are consenting, why not? What about necrophilia? If a person wants to spend “quality time” with his deceased spouse, he’s not really hurting anyone. It may sound extreme, but think about it objectively for a moment. Moreover, note the inconsistency in this judgement as well:

To ground criminal responsibility, the harm must be one which society formally recognizes as incompatible with its proper functioning. The objective test for criminal indecency that this Court has long insisted must be our goal, requires careful and express analysis of whether the alleged harm is on the evidence in the particular case truly incompatible with the proper functioning of Canadian society. This involves value judgements. What is the “proper” functioning of society? At what point do we say an activity is “incompatible” with it? Value judgements in this domain of the law, like many others, cannot be avoided. But this does not mean that the decision-making process is subjective and arbitrary.

Yes, it does, Your Honour. Your “value judgement” is “objectively based” on what society deems as harmful, which is necessarily subjective and arbitrary. You have simply passed the buck, doing the exact same thing everyone else does when they choose to engage in some form of deviant behaviour: “It’s society’s fault!” Well, hang on… if the majority of the world is religious and substantially moral, doesn’t that constitute society? Is it just one’s immediate community? County? Province? Define “society” for me, please. I echo John’s prayer in the last book of the bible

He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:20, NIV)

dumb and dumber

For my friends and brethren south of the 49th, up here in the Great White North we’re gearing up for a January federal election prompted by a “no confidence” vote in late November against the backdrop of financial scandal. Rest assured, we Canadians are like many larger North American mammals, and prefer to add a fall layer of fat, curl up in our caves, and gently snooze the winter away – so you can pretty much bank on a remarkably poor voter turnout for a late January election. Late January is, traditionally, the coldest period in the North West quarter of the world, so I suspect many of us will be huddled in the safety of our igloos, munching deep-fried whale-blubber and penguin-pogos, and trying to ward off rogue polar bear attacks. Perhaps there might be a couple of us brave enough to nip into town on our dogsleds, but that’s about it.

With said election just around the corner, I hereby predict that the Liberal party – the governing party of Canada since 1993 – is not only going to lose their position, but will be decimated. Not decimated in the same manner as the Tories were, mind you, but nailed pretty hard. Again, for my American friends: Many moons ago, just after electricity was installed in some of our larger 12-igloo metropolitan areas, a man by the name of Brian Mulroney became our “Prime Minister,” or “Big Chief Penguin.” It’s sort of like a president, but without any of the power or celebrity. Mr. Mulroney was Canadian leader during the NAFTA negotiations and eventual ratification, but he was also plagued with cessation talks in Quebec, unrest among our Native Peoples, the dreaded new Goods & Services Tax, as well as a disturbingly large lower-jaw. When Mulroney resigned, knowing full well that he could not lead his party into another election win, he’d hoped that his successor could recover the confidence of the populace. Unfortunately, the Conservative party chose, quite possibly, the absolute worst case scenario: a female. That’s not intended to be a sexist statement, because Kim Campbell was no political slouch by any stretch of the imagination. She spoke boldly and inspirationally, eyes firmly fixed on the future of Canada. She was, without question, the best person to lead the party. Unfortunately, the fact that she was also Canada’s first female Prime Minister made her a political novelty, and to a nation that was utterly exhausted by a leader who’d already carried the country too far from her traditional paths, Kim Campbell was the final nail in the Conservative coffin. In September of 1984, Brian Mulroney led Canada’s oldest political party into power with the largest seat majority in the history of the nation, taking 211 of 282 parliamentary seats. After Mulroney’s resignation, Kim Campbell led the party into the 1993 election which resulted in utter destruction of the party, winning only two seats. The oldest political party in Canada was no longer even recognized as an “official party.”

That is not the fate I’m predicting for the Liberal party. However, several recent gaffs has made it apparent to the Canadian people that they’ve been in power too long, and have become alienated from their constituents. That’s a natural thing, and not something that is necessarily bad. Politicians need to be kicked out of their comfy chairs every so often to see what the real world is like. It’s one thing to talk about the nations problems – it’s another thing to live them. Most recently, two senior Liberals advisors appeared separate television programs and decided to express their views on less fortunate members of Canadian society. One of the Conservative election promises is to increase the payout for families drawing on social services, and Liberal communications director, Scott Reid thinks that’s a bad idea. He advised CBC News on Sunday that, “Working families need care that’s regulated, safe and secure. Don’t give people 25 bucks to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work.”

Okay, that was just plain dumb, and Mr. Reid later admitted that in an email sent to the CBC a little later. Apparently he didn’t send that email soon enough to stop senior Liberal strategy advisor, John Duffy from commenting a little later on CTV in support of Reid’s statement, quipping, “There is nothing to stop people from spending it on beer or popcorn or a coat or a car or anything.” Okay, John… you’ve got to stop talking now. You work for a strategy company (www.strategycorp.com) for Pete’s sake! You’re supposed to know how to deal with gaffes like that.

I have no doubt that this simple “off-the-cuff dumb & dumber combo-meal” is going to echo long in the ears of Canadians who already feel that the Liberal government has been alienating them. Prime Minister Paul Martin in desperately trying to assure the media that he has the utmost confidence in low income Canadian families to care for their children, but the damage has been done. They’ve officially lost that vote, and they can only hope that January 23rd will be just too cold for them to go outside to hit the polls. Perhaps if beer and popcorn were provided at the polling stations…

northern exposure

I found this article from the New York Daily News horribly amusing first thing this morning…

In the U.S., we’re obsessed nationally with troop withdrawal and why the president didn’t include the word “Christmas” on his Christmas cards. In Canada, the hot topic is whether Dion Phaneuf deserves to be the sixth defenseman on the Olympic hockey team.

I like that way of life better, only it would involve moving to a country with socialized medicine and having to lug around those heavy dollar coins.

Really, wouldn’t you rather burst a vein shouting, “Ryan Smyth instead of Jason Spezza, are they INSANE?” instead of debating “Government Torture, Pro or Con?”

You can read the entire article here. Ah, I love it when American’s depict us as rural simpletons. It just sort of tickled my funny bone for some reason. Maybe it was one of those stress-giggles as I checked for news on those four young men who’s loves are in danger. As of this writing, no contact has yet been made from the kidnappers.

miracles and debacles

David Hopper, one of my classmates, who I originally met when I served a brief tenure on the Christian Education board at my church, has experienced a tremendous miracle. Either his wife, Melodye has an extremely high tolerance for pain, or God miraculously kept such pain from her, as she gave birth to her daughter at home on yesterday, almost by accident! David had the amazing privilege of helping bring his child into the world while waiting for the ambulance to arrive, and Harmony Mae is apparently healthy, happy, and unusually content. Praise God!

In other news Sony is currently trying to release a patch for their audio CD copy protection scheme which, if improperly removed, will render your CD drive unusable. It’s being called a “rootkit” and rightly so. Plopping one of 20 Sony CD titles in your PC’s CD-ROM drive will install software that intercepts Windows system calls, and redirects them through Sony’s software. One Sony’s media player can be used on the CDs and also limits the number of copies you can make of the songs. Any number of malware/spyware detectors will find Sony’s clumsy little hack, and attempt to remove it. Doing so will render your CD-ROM unusable (although repairable if you know your way around Windows advanced management tools), punishing you for daring to uninstall their software.

Copy protection is dumb and does not work. It just doesn’t! People who want to copy software, etc, will do it and there’s never been a copy-protection scheme to date that has not been cracked. Unfortunately, the ones who get punished are the typical home user, who’s about as malicious as a flower. Software piracy is wrong, certainly, and companies have a right to protect their intellectual property, but it’s not the fellow copying a CD for his friend who’s ripping into Sony’s profits! The ones who are can thwart such clumsy copy-protection attempts with little difficulty, and make zillions of copies for resale/download/etc. Come on, Sony… you’re smarter than this. Don’t think you are. Know it.

I hereby make the following prediction: The record companies, movie studios and software makers are going to lose this fight. They will either have to find ways to adapt to a changing market, or simply die. News media organizations are already feeling the pinch of independent news sources, and that trend will continue as individuals are empowered with the means, motive and opportunity to make themselves famous.

Homestarrunner.com doesn’t charge admission to access its content. It doesn’t have any television commercials enticing people to come visit. It doesn’t have any banner advertising to make it’s free content pay off. It isn’t a scheme tossed out there by a media giant. No, it’s just two guys (and a girlfriend) who are funny, and make funny flash cartoons. Their fans love it, and buy t-shirts from them. These guys could quit their jobs, and may never have to work a “regular job” again because of those stupid t-shirts, and now all kinds of attire and collectables.

Take a cue from the H-Star-r, folks. Don’t make the people hate you while you squeeze money out of them. Make them adore you, so they’re falling over themselves to give you money. Once these entertainment companies start to recognize that, perhaps they’ll stop being so angry at us, the consumer.

don’t touch the mike

At New Minas Baptist, when I was baptized and involved in the baptism of others, they always tell us not to touch the microphone. After reading this report I now understand why. Remember that family and University Baptist Church (Waco, Texas) in your prayers.

Thanks to Allison Kirkbride, my dear brother, for the link.

judge not lest ye be judged

Harriet Miers has done the intelligent thing and resigned her nomination to the Supreme Court, considering the fact that she has never sat behind the bench in her whole career, and her legal escapades are about as memorable as 4-armed-Grimace. That’s not to say she couldn’t be a fantastic judge, but when you have nothing going for you professionally except your friendship with the President to rally senate support, that’s just not a whole lot. Actually, I was somewhat shocked that George couldn’t make this one stick, since he seems to be brilliant at pushing through even the least likely political appointments (read “John Bolton”).

Cheers to Mrs. Meirs for this intelligent decision, and putting the solidarity of the republican party, and the support for her friend above what would have been a tremendous promotion. (Read Google News on this topic)

copyrights vs creative rights

It’s a non-stop dance between the right of copyright holders to control how thier intellectual property is distributed, and the creative right of companies who come up with innovative solutions for data-transfer systems, or empowering consumers. Take, for example, PlayStation mod-chips. A mod-chip is a small electronic device that you can add to your PS2, provided you know how to solder, and have a steady hand, that will add new functionality to your PlayStation.

In some cases, the mod-chip will allow you to cheat at a game (much like GameShark), or unlock hidden features just for fun and giggles. Mod chips also enable you to play games with other region-codes. PS2 consoles (as well as DVD players) have region codes that limit their ability to play discs from other regions, allowing companies to offer different pricing for different markets. So, a $50 game here in North America may be priced around $30 in Japan, but it doesn’t do me any good since my PlayStation can only read North American discs unless I have a mod-chip. Unfortunately, wouldn’t you know it, mod chips also allow you to play games that you backed up with your DVD burner. Uh-oh… wouldn’t you also know it, they also allow you to play games that you didn’t back up, but downloaded off the net and burned onto a DVD.

Aye, there’s the rub. In addition to their many benefits, mod-chips allow you to pirate games. Now we all know that software piracy is bad – it’s not rocket science. The question is, do we destroy the technology because it has the ability to do something bad? Consider the lowly VCR. Those of us who are a few years older remember the abuse this old device took from the industry. In the early 80s, studios were very upset at the prospect of having their television programs taped, and did everything they could to have the devices banned from North America. An innovative Japanese company who had invented a video-capable magnetic tape format called “Betamax” stepped up to the plate to take the first swing at the studios and challenge their position.

The now legendary Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. case defined a new precedent which has been the foundation for countless cases to follow. A private citizen’s right to have control over how they spend their time was the real heart of the case. You see, studios often air programs in direct competition with other programs. One of the most famous examples was “Donohue versus Oprah,” the two most popular talk-shows on television for several years. Studios attracted advertisers based on the number of viewers, allowing them to compete with one another, but VCRs changed the rules of the game. There were two kinds of people: those who taped Donahue and watched Oprah, and vise versa. Now there was no direct competition! Even worse, people who taped often fast-forwarded past the paid commercials!

Sony won that case, as we all know (since we can legally tape television shows for private use), but since then many new technologies have come to the fore that push the limits of copyright law. The latest court case was brought by Sony in Australia against the use of mod-chips on their PlayStation 2 consoles, and Sony lost. The Australian High Court has ruled that mod-chips are not illegal in and of themselves. Here’s an article from Australian IT on the ruling.

Where do you stand on the issue? Is it simply a case of “technologies don’t kill copyrights, people kill copyrights?” Are there technologies that should be made illegal because they have no legal use? BitTorrent, for example, is the most innovative, bandwidth-saving protocol to hit the scene – such that many online software distributors are using it to reduce the bandwidth requirements on their servers. Yet BitTorrent is also the latest popular piracy protocol. Should BitTorrent be made illegal? Should the recording/movie studios look at file-sharing protocols as a catalyst for redefining the mechanics of the industry? Chime in! Let me know what you think.