Monthly Archives: June 2013

Vague Patent Trolling

Posted on by
Reply

Timothy B. LeeTimothy B. Lee has been doing a lot of excellent reporting at Wonk Blog about our broken intellectual property system. At first, I was highly skeptical of Lee. Maybe it was unfair, but he used to work at the Cato Institute and my experience is that most libertarians have a blind spot when it comes to these issues. But he clearly understands the warping effects of these laws. At this point, things are so out of control that the system could be greatly improve before we would disagree on how best to move forward. In the end, I think that a socialistic approach to intellectual property is the best, and I doubt that Lee would agree. However, I’m in favor of a voluntary system; the big Hollywood studios could keep their copyrights. But a good solution to the problem would require that tax dollars go to support the system.

Lee’s latest IP article discussed the outrageous ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—for the second time! As he reported, “A firm called Ultramercial claims to have invented the concept of showing a customer an ad instead of charging for content.” This would be like thousands of years ago someone claiming that he invented the concept of exchanging goods for services and mandating that everyone pay him for his “invention.” Last year, the Appeals Court found the same way and the Supreme Court slapped it down and told it to reconsider the case. And they did: they found that they were right the first time.

Our patent and copyright system has degenerated to a point were it is little more than a legal maneuver. The idea of “showing a customer an ad instead of charging for content” is something we’ve had since at least the invention of newspapers. In this case, the court found that the “invention” wasn’t abstract enough to not qualify for protection. What I don’t understand is how this ruling can be seen as furthering any interests except that of Ultramercial, which is clearly just a patent troll. The justification for patents is that they encourage innovation. This ruling does exactly the opposite.

When I see rulings like this, all I can figure is that the justices are in way over their heads. They really don’t understand how the economy works and they don’t get innovation at all. They must see it as nothing but a legal strategy and may the best lawyer win. But the law is not supposed to be a game. Patents distort the market, but maybe that is okay because the benefits outweigh the deficits. But vague and obvious patents like the idea of advertising on the internet distort the market so much that they encourage litigation and discourage innovation.

The good news is that there is a decent chance that the Supreme Court will hear the case. Lee reported:

And it takes a narrower view of what can be patented than the Federal Circuit does—the last three Supreme Court decisions on the subject all invalidated patents the Federal Circuit had approved. If the appeals court responsible for patent law won’t rein in frivolous patenting, perhaps the Supreme Court will do the job itself.

But it doesn’t make me feel too good that there is so much damaging thinking in our legal system. There is a tendency on the part of conservatives especially to blame our litigious society on the poor. But the real problem we have is in the business community where we have true takers like Ultramercial who add nothing but demand their rents.

Good Change at SEC — Maybe

Posted on by
Reply

Mary Jo WhiteMary Jo White, the new chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is urging an end to the practice of settlements with businesses where they admit no wrongdoing. I agree with Matt Yglesias that this is a good change. For too long we’ve allowed companies to avoid any reputational stain for their misbehavior. The fines they paid were just seen as the cost of doing business. And given that the fines are never substantial relative to the size of the businesses, the SEC settlements don’t even amount to a slap on the wrist.

Where I part with Yglesias is in his belief that it really will matter. He says symbols matter and I agree. And it will be a very big deal when the first big company reaches a settlement with the SEC that includes an admission of wrongdoing. There will be a lot of pundit chatter about how important it is. But then it won’t make any real difference to the public. The company will launch a PR campaign and everything will be forgotten. And “admission of wrongdoing” will become the new normal. Business schools will teach classes on how to handle potential fallout from such deals.

What might actually help is holding top executives criminally liable for the wrongdoing of their businesses. But we’re not going to see that. Just like everywhere in the modern world, those at the top get all of the benefits from their position but absolutely none of the responsibilities. All of us scratch our heads when CEOs who have done great damage to their companies are given generous compensation when they are thrown out. This is the same thing. The theory is that the power elite are better than the rest of us and therefore cannot be made to suffer in the slightest. It is our version of aristocracy but without the noblesse oblige.

This decision by White may, however, be a good sign about her. She may be prepared to really face off with these companies. But it is impossible to say. As Yglesias wrote, “In brass tacks terms, one might wonder how much this matters. Is a fine plus an admission of guilt really so much worse than a fine plus a ‘neither admit nor deny’ wrongdoing?” He thinks it is. But to me, this could just be White’s way of mollifying the masses without doing anything that would make the business community unhappy.

Time will tell how good a job Mary Jo White does. I started out being very skeptical of her. This announcement doesn’t really change my position. But if she goes on to make the SEC into an institution that really does the people’s work, we will probably look back at this decision as the start of it all. With all my skepticism, I really do hope that turns out to be true.

Image of Mary Jo White is her official US government photo and so is in the public domain.

NASCAR Culture and Sport

Posted on by
17

Dale EarnhardtI spent today at the 2013 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series at Sonoma. I have never been to a NASCAR race and I doubt I will ever go again. But it was a great opportunity to see what it was all about. As you may remember, I wrote about auto racing less than a month ago and questioned why people like watching the sport. What’s more, I mentioned the effect that Dale Earnhardt’s death had on increasing the popularity of the sport. And here I was today watching his son, Junior, race. It was an educational experience on two levels: sporting and cultural.

Sport

There were 42 drivers competing today so I figured I needed to settle on a couple of them. There was one woman driving, so I picked her: Danica Patrick. And I picked another driver that I mistakenly thought was Iranian: Boris Said. Mostly I focused on Patrick because she was in the most brightly colored car and it made it really easy to spot. As a result of this, I got a better idea of the skills that are involved in racing. It is a lot like watching chess. Basically, it is a defensive sport. The driver is trying to not make a mistake that will allow another driver to get past her. That really is the main thing. There isn’t much brilliant driving, only keen skill in taking advantage of opponents’ mistakes. And that is most of what goes on in a chess game.

It is also like a chess game in that it is highly technical. The errors made by the drivers are all quite minor. Except for the crashes, of course. But I don’t think there is all that much appreciation of what is going on. The difference between a good turn and a bad turn strikes me as very small, even though one ends with a position change and the other does not. In that way, I can see that the crashes might have an appeal that is totally unrelated to the danger and damage. It does act as a kind of shuffling of the deck. It is the one time during a race when positions change in a big way. The rest of the race is quite subtle.

Speaking of accidents… Given that what I saw was a “12 turn road race,” it did not have the potential for high speed crashes that the oval track races do. I much prefer that. But there was one crash and the audience gasped. Or at least, the women in the audience gasped. It made me feel a lot better about the people who like auto racing. From now on, I’m going to assume that they really are concerned about that aspect of the races.

Culture

Although my opinion of auto racing fans was marginally improved by the great gasp, the NASCAR culture on display was truly horrifying. A friend of mine had made a joke about Confederate flags I would see at the race. I thought it was just that: a joke. But it wasn’t. I saw many Confederate flags. I find this very offensive. First, the Confederacy was a rebellion against the United States. It was not only unpatriotic, it was treasonous. Second, it was done in the name of our greatest national shame: slavery. I have no problem with people being proud of their southern heritage. But Germans manage to show their pride without waving Nazi flags around. The Confederate flag is no less offensive.

I was surprised that the auto race started with some Eagle Scouts leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance. That annoyed me for a couple of reasons. First: Eagle Scouts. Really? Why not just have Anita Bryant lead us in a stirring rendition of “One In A Million.” Second: I hate the Cold War pandering “Under God” addition. But most of all, I don’t like pledges of that kind. It’s too general. What exactly am I pledging? I’m sure everyone has their own ideas and that’s dangerous. I think it is particularly dangerous when a lot of those people think the Confederate rebellion was some kind of act of patriotism.

After the Pledge, it got much, much worse. There was a prayer. I was stunned. But what was really interesting was that I didn’t get the idea that most of the people were particularly happy about it. There was, however, a vocal minority who were whooping it up. And that told me two things. First, it wasn’t about religion; it was about cultural signifying. They were saying that they were the real Americans: the ones who are Christians. (Of course, check out this Google image search of Danica Patrick to get some idea of just how wholesome a sport auto racing is.) Second, NASCAR is pandering to this vocal minority.

Everywhere I went at this race I was struck by how NASCAR uses a kind of cliched Red State idea of what a real American is. It wasn’t just the ostentatious religion and the waving Confederate flags. There were constant mentions of our military. I remembered one point in particular, the announcer said that our “military men and women” keep us safe. We spend as much on our military as the next 11 countries combined. That isn’t a military that “keeps us safe”; that’s an imperialist military. What’s more, I’m not convinced that the safety our military provides us isn’t offset by the extra danger they bring upon us. Certainly, the 2000+ US troops who have died in Afghanistan were not safer.

So I have an increased appreciation for the sport of NASCAR. But it is way more than offset by its cultural pandering. Of course, it wouldn’t be my thing anyway. It is incredibly loud. It may be interesting, but it isn’t exciting. And it doesn’t show humans at their best the way that baseball or tennis can. Regardless, NASCAR clearly goes out of its way to make anyone like me feel unwelcome.

Apologies to Alan Turing

Posted on by
4

Alan TurningOn this day in 1894, the iconic sex researcher Alfred Kinsey was born. He was trained as an entomologist, which I suppose is as good a form of training as anything to study human sexuality. Kinsey’s great insight was simply that if you wanted to understand human sexuality, you just needed to ask humans about their sexuality. People are surprisingly honest about that kind of thing. Even as late as the discovery of natural selection, co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace was shy about placing man in with the other animals. To this day I find that many people think there is something fundamentally different between animals and humans. So the idea that human sexuality would be just like that of animals was and still is quite shocking to people. Ultimately, Kinsey’s main findings should not be surprising: human sexuality is a statistical continuum—deviance is a social and not a physical construct.

The great choreographer and film director Bob Fosse was born in 1927. It is really hard to pick something to showcase his work. It is best to watch one of his best films: Sweet Charity, Cabaret, Lenny, and All That Jazz. But here is a great scene from that last film with much credit to editor Alan Heim:

And June Carter Cash was born in 1929.

American embarrassment Clarence Thomas is 65 today. A good day to retire? Actor Frances McDormand is 56. I’ve been a fan of hers as far back as Mississippi Burning, where she had the weight of the whole of the decent white people of Mississippi. But she’s best known for Fargo. I’m not that big a fan of the film, but I really do love this scene near the end of the picture where she sums up its theme, “I just don’t understand it.” No, none of us really do:

And Joss Whedon is 49 today. I’m very fond of Firefly. I also think he wrote a good script for the movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I think Fran Rubel Kuzui made a mess of. I’ve tried to like the series but apart from developing a crush on Alyson Hannigan, I think the show errs in not realizing it is first and foremost a comedy. I liked his script for Alien Resurrection. And you can read what I had to say about The Avengers. So he’s a mixed bag and certainly way overrated.

The day, however, belongs to the father of the computer Alan Turing who was born on this day back in 1912. He was also extremely important in breaking Nazi codes during World War II. We rewarded him by castrating him for the “crime” of homosexuality which quickly led to his suicide at the age of 41. But lest you think I am suggesting that we are somewhat more enlightened now, I’m not. Here’s what I wrote about Michelle Obama’s interest in Downton Abbey:

I assure you of this: in 100 years, people will look back on us with horror that we threw junkies into jail for decades (when we didn’t just let them die from dirty needles and tainted drugs). And they will look very far down on a president and first lady who watched millions of young people’s lives destroyed while they patted themselves on the back for their liberal attitudes. Oh my! How very forward thinking the president was in coming out in favor of marriage equality in 2012! What cutting edge liberal thinking! Please. Let’s be clear: if it were 1952, Obama would (Regrettably, mind you!) be in favor of castrating Alan Turing.

We are a horrible people and we always will be. My very great apology to Turing and all of the rest. But for today, I hope, I can say without irony:

Happy birthday Alan Turing!

Unstable Weirdos and Business Success

Posted on by
3

EntrepreneursDave Logan over at CBS News explains why so many geniuses don’t have jobs. He has a broad definition of the word “genius”: anyone who is brilliant at something or other that the business world might find useful. The problem is that people who are really good at one thing are usually very bad at others. Like most management consultants, Logan likes to quantify things, even if it is just a wild ass guess; so he lays out a 10-point scale: 1 being very bad and 10 being great. Implicit in his argument is that companies would rather hire someone who was 5 across the board than some brilliant person who also had personality issues.

Logan also subdivides the geniuses into three categories: (1) obnoxious extroverts; (2) invisible introverts; and (3) unstable weirdos. But like most people in the business self-help world, he has no real insights into these people. His big idea is to train them to act more appropriately in a business setting. That might work with the obnoxious extroverts, but it won’t work for the others. The only way to work with a brilliant introvert is to create a safe environment were he can gain confidence. Introverts are more than willing to put forward their ideas if they get the chance. My experience of it is that in most businesses it is only the loud who get listened to. So if employers want to hire brilliant introverts, they need to change their work environments, not their introverts.

For the unstable weirdos, it is even worse. Logan writes of them:

On their good days, they seem like ideal executives — able to take lots of views into account, plot the best course forward, and exude so much energy, the lights are brighter when they’re in the room. On their bad days, they are moody, unresponsive, slow, and pessimistic. They may have bipolar disorder, or something else.

Exactly! Yet he thinks that somehow they can be fixed with a little chat about office decorum? Bipolar people aren’t pretending. They really do think they can conquer the world some days and can hardly manage to get out of bed others. It’s brain chemistry. And it’s awful.

Being, by all accounts, a type (3) and to a lesser extent a type (2) genius, I know what kind of work environments these kinds of people need. And that is the problem. The business community does not like these kinds of people because they disrupt regular order in the work place. And it isn’t just their oddities. Their “positive” attributes are also upsetting under most circumstances. Logan mentions Steve Jobs. Regardless what you think of him (I think he is the most overrated executive ever), he wasn’t part of a team — he always led the team. Thus he created the environment that he needed to flourish.

Even in the high tech world, people are treated as parts of a machine. That is why they have job titles like “computer programmer.” If one employee leaves, another can be hired and plugged into the same position. I’ve had the experience of being too valuable to an employer, and they hated it. And understandably so! If I had left suddenly, they would have been screwed. But on an even more fundamental level, they just didn’t trust me because I was not really part of their tribe. I didn’t fit in and fitting in is what most work is about. Most companies just trudge along. They don’t innovate. People need coat hangers, not new fangled devices for hanging clothes. And so finally, what is an odd genius in the workplace other than a dangerous disruption?

When a company needs a genius, it contracts with one.

Afterword

The idea that businessmen are necessarily entrepreneurs is ridiculous. Most successful businesses are nothing more than well managed operations. Innovation is only acceptable if it is incremental. Businesses do not do revolution. Think of Apple: most people’s idea of a highly innovative company. They’ve come up with almost nothing new. They are good at packaging other people’s ideas. But even there, the “look and feel” of their devices has evolved gradually. Like most big high tech companies, when they want a new technology, they just buy some little company where geniuses are still welcome.

Impulsivity in the Park

Posted on by
Reply

kids playing outsideFor those who don’t know, I homeschool my son. Part of the experience involves participating in afternoon park days with a couple of homeschool groups every week. Most often my boy seems to have fun as he plays with other kids. This past week, however, was not the greatest experience due to an incident during a game of Red Rover.

Allow me to briefly explain what this game involves. The kids split into two groups. One group forms a line holding hands. They call members of the other group over by saying “Red Rover, Red Rover, send (input child’s name) right over.” The kid who’s called has to run as forcefully as he or she can toward the line of children holding hands. The object is to break the connection between two of these kids. After that, I forget what the rules are. I know, it sounds like an injury waiting to happen, especially for the fact that the age range of kids playing this particular day was 4 to 13. I know it seems obvious that maybe we should have suggested another game, but hindsight is 20/20, and it was a game I played as a kid without injury (at least none I can remember).

Anyway, while a couple of other parents and I were chatting away, I looked over and noticed a small child on the ground. It wasn’t clear if he was injured because he wasn’t crying. As it turns out, he had been hurt by my son who happened to now be facing away from the group several yards away. I called my son to return to the group to have him discuss the situation, but he was, as usual, close-mouth. I knew that this was not a time to be accusatory (not that it ever is), especially since my boy had tears welling up in his eyes. I simply and gently told him that it was just important to apologize when we make a mistake and hurt someone.

Meanwhile, two of my son’s friends gave the details of the story. What happened was apparently a combination of errors. There were only three kids holding hands in a line. Two of the bigger kids in the line had been standing so closely that my kid’s only option was to run between the smaller child and the older kid in the middle. Because he has ADHD, my son doesn’t always think about consequences. He might otherwise have asked the children who were standing shoulder to shoulder to separate.

Normally, when my son unintentionally hurts someone, especially a small child, he demonstrates remorse and apologizes. According to my boy’s storyteller friends, in this situation, he didn’t get a chance. When he tried to run through the line and the small child toppled over, that child’s big brother immediately laid into my son, saying things like, “Thanks a lot for hurting my brother!”

After the incident and after I got the details of the story, my son left the group, teary-eyed, and headed to the bathroom. Fortunately, there was a  dad in the group who was able to follow him to chat and make sure my son was okay.

In my head, a light went on. I had always wondered why my kid wanders off by himself so often. Sometimes I see him sitting on the lawn in the middle of the park or climbing a distant tree. Often, I have gone to him and asked “what’s wrong,” to which I get, “Nothing. Everything’s fine.” Even though my son is so close-mouthed, I now strongly believe he goes off by himself after something bad has happened. To make matters worse, since my son has a reputation for doing things without thinking, other kids feel they have a license to be inappropriately severe with him.

My son’s impulsivity has diminished as he’s gotten older, though it can apparently still cause him problems. I just have to hope the impulsivity will occur less and less often, and I will keep reminding him to consider potential outcomes for any given situation. Maybe this will help. Though this is tough for many people, I think.

While my son was in the bathroom having a heart-to-heart with the homeschool dad, I was talking with the mom whose boys were involved in the Red Rover incident. I was able to explain to her that my son has a diagnosis of ADHD. I also had to kind of explain to her what that means, as much as I know, anyway. She actually thanked me. She said her older boy and mine had had some history of conflict. My explanation for my son’s impulsivity was really helpful, and she would have a talk with her children. I’d like to think that this will help and this will improve my son’s relationship with the other kids. I now feel like I should be talking to more parents about why my son often behaves the way he does, the fact that he has ADHD and what that means.

The Private Life of Billy Wilder

Posted on by
Reply

Billy WilderOn this day back in 1903, John Dillinger was born. What I’ve always found so interesting about him is how he and Baby Face Nelson hooked up. Compared to Nelson, Dillinger seems almost aristocratic. Or at least not a total psychopath. Anyway, Dillinger had just turned 31 when he was killed. That seems amazing, but maybe it shouldn’t. Nelson was only 25 when he was killed. All those gangsters were so precocious!

Producer Joseph Papp was born in 1921. Fashion designer Bill Blass was born in 1922. And Freddie Prinze was born in 1954. I was going to put up a clip from Chico and the Man, but they were all awful. Here is Prinze doing some respectable stand-up:

Pa Walton, Ralph Waite is 85 today. Dianne Feinstein is 80. Why didn’t she retire this year? Kris Kristofferson is 77. I don’t really get most of his music. Except for this one:

Fucktard Brit Hume is 70. Todd Rundgren is 65, so I guess he’ll retire now. I think of him primarily for his production of Bat Out of Hell, which really is an excellent album. Three notable women all turn 64 today: Meryl Streep, Lindsay Wagner, and Elizabeth Warren. The other Graham Greene is 61. He starred in one of my very favorite movies Medicine River. The funny thing about that film is that almost no one has seen it, but those who have love it. And that’s why sellers on Amazon can get away with selling a VHS copy for $40. If you get a chance, don’t miss it.

Cyndi Lauper is 60. Bruce Campbell is 55. Environmentalist Erin Brockovich is 53. Basketball player Clyde Drexler is 51. Author Dan Brown is 49. And the boxing director Uwe Boll is 48.

The day, however, belongs to one of my favorite directors, Billy Wilder who was born on this day in 1906. He directed a number of my favorite films: Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, and (perhaps surprisingly, since no one else cared for it) The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, which sadly is about an hour too short and it isn’t clear whether it will ever be properly restored. I think this trailer is horrible, but it gives an okay idea of the film:

Happy birthday Billy Wilder!

Matt Yglesias Impersonates Basil Smikle

Posted on by
Reply

Matt YglesiasI knew that Matt Yglesias was a smart young man, but I had no idea he did impersonations. You may know him just because I write so much about him here. I often think he is too clever and provides conservatives with policy cover on some economic issues. In particular, like most intellectuals of his age, he is none too fond of workers and unions. And he can be very silly when writing about things outside of politics. Regardless, he is a smart guy with some very good insights. He is also a white man with beard, glasses, and little hair.

This morning he was doing an amazing impression of Democratic strategist Basil Smikle on Up with Steve Kornacki:

Matt Yglesias Does Basil Smikle

On the segment, we also got a little of Josh Barro (who is rather cute with a little hair) cheer leading for Michael Bloomberg’s effort to destroy the Democratic Party. As I’ve argued a lot recently, Barro may support a more practical conservative movement, but all of his actions only serve to strengthen modern (non-practical) conservatives and harm liberals. It’s the same as with the libertarians: they think of themselves as outside the conservative movement but all they do is provide intellectual firepower for the conservative policy status quo.

But I’ll say one thing for Barro: at least he was actually on Up with Steve Kornacki during that segment.

Update (23 June 2013 7:14 pm)

Yesterday, Matt Yglesias tweeted the following:

That’s very nice given all the nasty things I wrote about him above. He is a better man than I. But in my defense, I take it as a given that Yglesias is a brilliant young man—my readers know just how much I gush about him—and quote him! But if you only read this article, you might think I didn’t like him much. But I figure people who reach the professional heights that he has must have developed a thick skin.

Jesus Reborn as Superman

Posted on by
6

Man of SteelDespite my better judgement, I went to see Man of Steel yesterday. Comic book heroes are silly. I mean, really? You have super acrobatic abilities and can echolocate so you dress up in a red costume with DD printed on the chest? Really?! It makes no sense, especially given that both the bad guys and the police want to get you. But as they say: there’s silly and then there’s silly. Daredevil may be silly, but Superman is silly. He is arguably the silliest of all super heroes. But that isn’t bad; it’s fantastic! It’s in the same league with Elvis impersonators.

What you don’t do is take Superman seriously. And Man of Steel takes Superman very seriously. Deadly serious! There is almost no humor in the movie. The “S” that Superman wears on his chest means “Hope” on his home planet. Under normal circumstances, that would have been kitschy enough to pass. But not here! The first 20+ minutes of the film is spent with Russell Crowe channeling Richard Burton at his most serious. The powers that control Krypton have brought on environmental catastrophe. But he has a really great idea: they’ll all die. But they can feel good about it because he’ll send his new baby off to earth to repopulate the race with the natives. Or something. It all involves some kind of genetic codex that for some reason was in some kind monkey skull but in what maybe was supposed to be a surprise we learn it was transferred into Superman himself. Regardless, the whole sequence is ponderous, helped along by the worst Hans Zimmer score I’ve ever heard.

If you doubt me, check out this trailer which is a perfect representation of the film:

But the most important aspect of this opening is when Superman’s mother complains about blasting him off to earth. She says, “He will be an outcast. They’ll kill him!” And his father replies, “How? He’ll be a god to them!” Did I mention that the dialog in this film is really bad? Moving on… That’s not bad all by itself. But the rest of the film makes the metaphor concrete. The most brazen example is when Superman goes to a church to talk to a priest. There is a shot (I swear I am not making this up!) of Superman on the right and a stained glass image of Jesus on the left. And the shot is held a lonnnggg time! But there are all kinds of other examples. We constantly see him with his arms outstretched as though he were suffering on the cross. Plus there is lots of talk about the people not being ready to know the existence of Superman and how he is their savior.

The film even ends with Superman destroying a satellite the military has put up to locate his ice home or whatever. It is right out of the Tower of Babel. Oh the hubris of man!

There seems to be a trend in superhero films to go this “serious” road. The last Spiderman film was more that way. Thor is necessarily that way. (And therefore should never have been made!) But this is a wrong direction to go. If Hollywood wants to make serious films, it could, I don’t know, make serious films. But films like Man of Steel simply take their silliness seriously. A more interesting thing would be to create a badass Jesus come back from the dead. I realize that would offend Christians. But if they were paying attention, they’d be offended by Man of Steel.

Afterword

There is much more to say about the film. It is deeply disturbing. I’m particularly bothered by the Superman as Ubermensch aspect of it. Even though Superman is a “good guy,” he does define his own moral universe. He has no problem breaking the law for his own purposes. He is also shown to be one vindictive son of a bitch. I would be very worried indeed if he were hanging around on the planet. If Superman really wanted to be helpful, he would do what is shown in this Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal cartoon. (Check it out; it’s brilliant!)

Update (27 April 2015 12:27 pm)

Oh, and honest trailer:

Pressure on Republican House?!

Posted on by
Reply

Ramesh PonnuruI’ve been skeptical of the idea that if 70 senators vote for the immigration bill it will put so much pressure on House Republicans that they will have to pass it. If 70 senators vote for it, that means (given likely unanimity or near-unanimity among the Democrats) that a strong majority of Senate Republicans voted against it. That’s not going to put pressure on House Republicans. A Republican who supports the legislation said to me recently that I’ve gotten the psychological dynamics wrong: The bigger the Senate vote, the less likely House Republicans are to pass the bill, because they don’t like being cornered. I think there’s probably something to that idea.

—Ramesh Ponnuru
Pressure Points on Immigration

Problem with Unenforced Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Three Felonies a DayOver at Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok discussed how No One is Innocent. He referenced Harvey Silverglate’s book, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. As the title indicates, Silverglate thinks that people commit three felonies per day on average. Taborrok doesn’t think it is that high, but that it is certainly true that people commit felonies commonly. He referenced a common why that we all commit felonies, “Have you ever thrown out some junk mail that came to your house but was addressed to someone else? That’s a violation of federal law punishable by up to 5 years in prison.”

Tabarrok’s primary concern is government surveillance. Since we are all of us committing serious crimes all of the time, it really does matter that the government is always watching us. As I’ve discussed, today the government is just looking for bomb plots. Soon it will be looking for drug users. And after that it will be the adulterer who is destroying our great country. That isn’t just paranoia; this kind of data use creep is a well known phenomenon.

But the problem is much deeper than Tabarrok indicates. The one thing that I learned from Ayn Rand that was really valuable was her comment about how the Soviet Union kept people in check. She noted that that they didn’t do that by enforcing laws very strictly. They did it by having a gazillion laws that no one enforced. Or, at least, they were never enforced as long as a person didn’t annoy the power elite. If someone started talking publicly about the need for government reform, well then, suddenly the police found all kinds of laws that the person was breaking.

That’s the problem we have in the United States. We’ve already see the United States government go after anti-war groups in the name of terrorism. An even better example is John Kiriakou, who is doing two and a half years in prison. He’s there because he blew the whistle on our torture program, but of course that isn’t the technical reason. The government found a minor offense to justify putting him in a cage for 30 months. Meanwhile, no one who broke the law by being part of the torture program is in jail, even though in addition to torture they have certainly all thrown away junk mail that didn’t belong to them.

The evidence is clear: our government will persecute anyone that gets in its way. And these unenforced laws make it easy. And when the government stores all of our phone and internet information for later use, you can bet that anyone who gets in the way of the government will have plenty of incriminating evidence against them just sitting on the NSA computers.

Scary Birthday!

Posted on by
Reply

Joe FlahertyOn this day in 1732, Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach was born. He was the ninth son Johann Sebastian Bach. Was that the last of his sons? I don’t actually know. Johann Sebastian had two wives. The first gave him seven children before she died for unknown reasons but I figure it was simply exhaustion. The second, who was 17 years younger than he, gave him 13 more kids. He was a randy old guy. Anyway, Johann Christoph Friedrich was quite a good composer like all the Bach boys. He was an early Classical composer (you can definitely detect a strong Baroque influence) as you can hear in the following Sonata for Flute in F Major:

The great French mathematician Simeon Denis Poisson was born 1781. The Banjo LessonJewish philosopher and socialist Moses Hess was born in 1812. The great American painter Henry Ossawa Tanner was born in 1859. He was the first African-American painter to get noticed by the world art community. You can definitely see the appeal in The Banjo Lesson on the right. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was born in 1905. Author Mary McCarthy was born in 1912. Two gorgeous actors Judy Holliday and Jane Russell was born in 1921. Lovely in a different way, Maureen Stapleton was born in 1925. And director Tony Scott was born in 1944. It turns out that he did not have cancer; he just wanted to kill himself. But I think, “You don’t have to make all crap; you have a lot of talent; why don’t do something good instead of just another action blockbuster. Repeat after me: I will never make another film with Chris Pine.” As it was, I thought he made a few films that were rather good: True Romance, Crimson Tide, and Enemy of the State. It’s very sad.

Actor Bernie Kopell (“Doc” on The Love Boat) is 80 today. Meredith Baxter is 66. Novelist Ian McEwan is 65. And cartoonist Berkeley Breathed is 56. Here is an example of his brilliance:

Bloom County

And the adorable Juliette Lewis is 40.

The day, however, belongs to one of the funniest people on the planet—at least from my persepctive—Joe Flaherty, who is 72 today. I would like to provide a good overview of his work, but there just isn’t that much available online. Here he is doing his most beloved character, Count Floyd:

Happy birthday Joe Flaherty!