Another RIAA law

The RIAA and its friends are trying to push a new bill through Congress that says "'whoever intentionally induces any violation' of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations." The bill enjoys widespread, bipartisan support in the Congress. Why is this law necessary? The story of Napster proves that the existing laws are sufficient to drive an offending service off the air.

If the existing laws work, why add a new one to muddy the waters? Simple. Second generation P2P services learned the legal lessons of Napster and responded accordingly. As a result, courts have determined these services are legal. The courts have realized that these services can be used to distribute material that does not violate copyright restrictions as well as the MP3 files the recording industry is concerned with. So since existing laws make Kazaa and the like legal, they need to change the law to get what they want.

I'm all for protecting copyrighted material. But the digital age seems to be producing poorly considered laws that give far too much power to the big companies. Look at what's happening to 321 Studios. They are a small company that makes software to allow a user to make a backup copy of a DVD or video game. This is legal under fair use laws. This software can, of course also facilitate piracy by allowing copies to be made of a DVD or video game that could then be distributed via the internet. This triggers provisions in the DMCA about circumventing protections. The movie and video game industry has hammered 321 Studios almost to the point of bankruptcy, even though they have not had their day in court for the video game case. The DMCA essentially allows the big companies with vast reservoirs of money to launch law suit after law suit against much smaller companies, bludgeoning them into submission.

The big companies have the power to hammer through legislation that tailors the law to whatever suits them, even at the expense of the consumer. This new proposal to give the industry what the courts would not is yet another example. Congress should reject this bill and let existing laws function. If the industry cannot win with the existing laws, maybe they should accept that and get down to the business of making and distributing a product that users want and will pay for.

Fuzzing It Up

I don't usually like Ted Rall's commentary. He's the Left's version of Babbling Ann Coulter. But he recently posted an op-ed piece entitled "Fuzzing It Up". It's all about the way Bush encouraged the false perception that Hussein's Iraq was involved in Sept. 11. Rall is dead on here. Bush never said explicitly that Hussein was involved. Yet some 69% of the American people, according to polls, thought he was. According to Rall, this was the result of deliberate deception by the president, who very carefully implied something while never explicitly stating it.

To quote Rall, "On June 17, for example, Bush said that Saddam had 'provided safe haven for a terrorist like [Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab] Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq.' Actually, Zarqawi never lived in Saddam's Iraq; he arrived after the U.S. invasion. But a guy Bush says is like Zarqawi, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, did live in Baghdad under Saddam. To the extent that any Abu is like another, Zarqawi is like Nidal. (In this phrasing, 'like' typically means 'for example.' In order to obfuscate, however, Bush will claim to have meant 'similar to.')" So, technically, Bush didn't say that al Qaeda leader Zarqawi was given safe haven by Saddam, but the impression given by the statement is that he was.

Some may question Rall's interpretation that Bush deliberately mislead the American people on this. At the very least, though, one has to ask why he did not more vigorously correct the public misperception. That this error was widespread was well known before and during the war. Does he not have an interest in the truth? The mistaken impression left on the public was useful to his cause of pushing for war in Iraq. Therefore, at the very least, he deliberately allowed the public to believe a lie because it benefited him. That's disgraceful! Only when the lie was turning against him did Bush decide it was time to correct the public.

Movie Review: Secret Window

I saw the latest Stephen King-based movie, Secret Window, over the weekend on DVD. Every review I've read on the film was negative. I liked the movie. Not great, but I would give it 2 1/2 stars.

The film stars Johnny Depp as an author, Mort Rainey, holed up in his woodland home, and John Turturro as a mysterious stranger, John Shooter. Six months previous to the story, Mort found his lovely wife in bed with another man. Now they are divorced, or almost so, since he hasn't signed the papers. As the story proper begins, Shooter shows up at Rainey's door abruptly accusing Rainey of stealing his unpublished story some years before. Shooter claims to have written his story in 1997, but Rainey can prove he wrote it in 1994 by finding an Ellery Queen magazine with the original publication. Rainey tries to retrieve the issue, but mysterious events continue to block his attempts.

The movie is not a horror movie, and there are few scares. I wouldn't even call it a thriller. It is a psychological film, in the same category as the vastly superior Fight Club, and the comparable in quality Identity. Acting is solid all around, as is the direction. Like I said, not an outstanding film, but nice entertainment.

NFL 2004, Very Early Predictions

[Originally published 6/24/2004]

For football fans like myself, this is the darkest time of the year. Training camp is still a month away, and the actual season more than two. The past season is a fading memory as teams breakup and reform with new rosters. Even the draft is past. In such emptiness, it's time to start prognosticating on what will happen come September.

Before getting into each division, I must disclose that I am a big fan of the Steelers, Packers, and Patriots.

AFC East

The division comes down to New England and Buffalo. The Patriots last year won their second Super Bowl in three years. Clearly, then, they must be considered an early front runner for the division title. The Pats have finally acquired a big-time running back in Corey Dillon. The passing game remains intact from last year's 14-2 team. There have been some talent losses, though. Losing Ted Washington isn't that big a deal, because of his age and because he missed much of last season anyway. The big loss will be Damien Woody at center. New England doesn't rely heavily on a running game, though with Dillon it should be a bigger part of the game plan. But the offensive line is key to any offense, and losing the center can really disrupt it.

Buffalo has a considerable amount of talent on both offense and defense, enough to be one of the top teams in the conference. Last year's misery leaves a big question mark over the team, but they easily have more talent than New England and should make a strong run at the title.

I've never been a big fan of Miami. Only when the rest of the division is exceptionally week, which it often has been over the last decade, can the Dolphins survive their traditional December swoon. With the worst passing game in the division (though the best running game), it's hard to see them overcoming the dominance of New England and Buffalo.

AFC North

This will again be the weakest division in the league. Last year, only Baltimore and Cincinnati had anything approaching respectability. That will likely repeat this year. Baltimore will continue its never-ending quest for a capable quarterback to compliment it's dominant running game. Given that no team in the division is terribly familiar with the end zone themselves, Baltimore's low scoring approach, coupled with a stifling defense, will deliver another division title.

The Bengals will continue their resurgence under Marvin Lewis. I was very critical last year of Cincinnati's decision to draft Carson Palmer. Kitna had delivered a solid season in 2002, and there were pressing needs on a pathetic team. (Imagine Terrell Suggs, now in Baltimore, playing in Cincinnati.) Now, the Bengals must pay the price by demoting Kitna, who had better numbers than Tom Brady last year, and going with an untried first-time starter. The best case scenario is that Palmer struggles early getting used to the pro game, adjusts by mid-season, and starts to play solid football for the last 4-6 weeks of the season. Unfortunately by then, his struggles in the earlier part of the season will have created enough lossses to continue the Bengal streak of non-winning seasons, though they would be well-positioned for a strong 2005. The worst case scenario, of course, is that Palmer decided to emulate Akili Smith.

Like Buffalo, Pittsburgh mysteriously underachieved in 2003, finishing with a dismal 6-10 record. While I can't explain the collapse, they haven't done much to address their problems, so the Steelers will likely not contend for the title. On the other hand, the division is so weak that anyone could take it.

AFC West

This division clearly belongs to Kansas City and Denver. Last year, Denver was the better team when quarterback Jake Plummer was the starter. This offseason, the Broncos have improved their defense and kept their offense largely together. Kansas City has the better offense, but last year had an inept defense. The talent is there for the Chiefs, and now they have proven defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham to run the show. Expect a greatly improved Chief defense to go with another dominant offense. Choosing between these two teams is a real toss-up, but I will go with Kansas City.

Oakland continues to bring in older players. Acquiring players like Warren Sapp and Ted Washington brings experience, to an already experienced unit. These players, once great, are well past their primes and will not help against younger, dominant division rivals like the Chiefs. The best move was acquiring Kerry Collins to be their starting quarterback for the next several years, though probably not this one.

AFC South

Like the West, this division bifricated last year into two top teams (Indianapolis and Tennessee), and two forgettable teams (Jacksonville and Houston). The Colts are one of the best teams in the conference, behind the best quarterback in the game. They will easily defend their division title this year. The Titans have had a solid run over the last five years, reaching the conference title game twice and the Super Bowl once. The team, however, is getting older and is gradually hemorrhaging their talent base. In this day and age, teams only get so many cracks at the title, and the Titans have had theirs.

The interesting teams in this division are the lesser ones. Jacksonville ended 2003 strongly, which positions them well for a strong 2004. They have talent on both sides of the ball, including an exciting young quarterback, and are well coached. Houston has managed their personnel exceedingly well since entering the league and also field a young, talented team with solid coaching. Look for the Jaguars to finish a surprising second in the division, with new and old Houston battling for the third spot.

NFC East

This is another tough division to pick. Philadelphia has dominated the division for three years, reaching the NFC conference title game each time. On my theory that a team only gets so many cracks, I have to pick against Philadelphia for 2004. I am growing in my admiration for Donovan McNabb, but I don't see that he has the weapons around him to be a truly strong team. Yes, they added a good reciever in Owens, but that's about it. The loss of Duce Staley could end up being more painful than originally thought. Having a running back by committee approach does not mean the backs are interchangable. In 2002, the Steelers had a committee approach between Bettis and Zeroue. In 2003, they tried to change to just Amos, and their running game fell apart. Are the remaining backs in Philly ready to step up the next level? I don't know. On the defensive side, there has been a steady erosion of talent for the past few years. This is becoming critical.

So, if the Eagles are out, who will take the division? Every team in the division has the potential to win it, and every team is overflowing with question marks. Philly's have already been enumerated. The Giants are aging and will likely start the season with a quarterback who has won two league MVP awards, but no one is sure he can play anymore. Dallas has strong coaching and a solid defense, but will have a rookie at running back, uncertainty at quarterback between players with underwhelming talent, and a questionable offensive line. The Redskins have a Hall of Fame coach, but a recent history of losing and underachieving. They will have a new, aging quarterback, and a new running back. The offensive line will have a great coach, but the talent from last year's sieve will still be on the field.

In the end, I think I will go with Dallas. They made the playoffs last year and are therefore the safe pick to supplant Philadelphia.

NFC North

There was a time when this was the best, toughest division in the NFL. Those days are long gone. The North division in both conferences is the weakest of each. In 2003, the Vikings got off to a quick start, but ended up at 9-7 on a loss on the last play of the last game of the season. Let me repeat that. The last play of the last game of the season, to one of the worst teams in the league! (Remember, I'm a Packer fan.) Truth be told, the Vikings are the most talented team in the division. I have long felt their problem has been attitude rather than ability. This was a team thinking about wrapping up a division title at the midpoint of last season. This was a team that lost to the teams with the top three spots in the 2004 draft (San Diego, Oakland, Arizona), but beat the Chiefs, and the Packers at Lambeau. If they can learn to curb the attitude and play the weak teams as strongly as the good teams, the Vikings will take the division.

The Packers? Well, they were up and down much of last season, until Favre's outburst of dominance in December. Brett is getting older and the inevitable decline has begun. 2003 was their last shot at the Super Bowl with Favre. They no longer have the tools to overcome the Vikings, though if Minnesota falters again, Green Bay will be there to sneak in.

Watch out for Detroit. The franchise has been struggling for a while now, but they are accumulating some talent, and Mariucci is an underrated coach. With Harrington improving at quarterback and two solid, young recievers for him to throw to, they could start making some noise in the North this year, though I think they are still one year away.

NFC West

This is a division long dominated by San Francisco, and for the last few years St. Louis. The 49ers were once the best run team in the league. They are rapidly becoming the worst, eliminating anyone in the coaching staff or roster with anything resembling talent. Bay Area fans, prepare yourselves. Your team could well end up in fourth place this year.

Arizona is getting better, especially if McCown is as good as Dennis Green thinks he is. But going with a very aged Emmitt Smith as the starting running back does not bode well for the Cardinal ground attack.

As in 2003, this division comes down to Seattle and St. Louis. I have mentioned my theory a couple of times that a team only gets so many shots. This implies that the Rams are going down. The team is getting older. Marshall Faulk is not what he once was. Marc Bulger wins regular season games, but he will not make one forget Kurt Warner in his prime. Losing Grant Wistrom from the field and Lovie Smith from the coaching booth will hurt the Ram defense, a very underappreciated component of their Super Bowl seasons.

The Seahawks have finally gotten their stuff together under Mike Holmgren. They have one of the best offenses in the league, and an improving defense. They should be able to finish off a weakening Ram team this year and win the division.

NFC South

This is Carolina's division. I don't see much competition for the defending NFC champions. New Orleans just never seems to go anywhere. Tampa is in transition from Tony Dungy's powerhouse team to a more Gruden-friendly version. With the talent they have lost this offseason, a weak recieving core, a suspended running back, and a strong quarterback who has to feel extremely insecure about his job, it is difficult to see the Bucs matching their 7-9 performance in 2003.

The only team that could possibly give the Panthers a challenge is Atlanta. I know I'm in the minority here, but the jury is still out on Michael Vick. I know he had a great season in 2002 running the ball, when he lead the team to a surprising playoff appearance. But he's a quarterback, not a running back. As a passer, his 2002 performance was quite ordinary. He is not surrounded by great talent either at running back or reciever.

Super Bowl

It's far too hard to predict a Super Bowl at this point. Instead, I'll pick four teams from each conference that I think have the best chance of winning their conferences.

AFC: New England, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Denver
The Pats have proven to be a quite formidable team. Not only did they win the Super Bowl last year, they ran off 15 straight victories in a tough schedule, beat three of the best teams in the AFC twice (Indy, Tennessee, Miami), and beat some NFC playoff teams to boot. Clearly they are the team to beat. But Carolina proved they can be beaten, and the Colts, Chiefs, and Broncos all should have offenses to challenge the Patriot stout defense.

NFC: Seattle, Carolina, Minnesota, Dallas
It's hard to pick four top teams in the NFC. There aren't that many good teams in the NFC. So Dallas makes the list just because I predict them to win their division. The Panthers are clearly the experienced team, with a well-rounded offense and solid defense. I see the conference coming down to the Panthers and Seahawks, with the Vikings on the outside. (They still don't have a defense.)

System Failure, Please Reboot

[Originally published 4/27/2004]

The United States has a wonderful system of government that is laid out in its Constitution. The American system is comprised of very carefully designed checks and balances between the three branches of the government. Every authority granted one branch is balanced by checks given to other branches. This is a good system, but relies on one very simple assumption: the people in government do their jobs. When they do not, the balances built into the system fail to function. The United States has waged an ill-advised war in Iraq. Why? Because the members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, failed to do their jobs. They abdicated their responsibility to the American people!

The war on Iraq was justified by the administration on the grounds that intelligence information incontrovertibly indicated Saddam Hussein's regime possessed large quantities of chemical and biological weapons, was on the verge of building a nuclear weapon, and had alliances with terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. According to the administration, the intelligence was fool-proof. (It was clearly Bush-proof, at least.)

In the US system of government, Congress has oversight responsibility on intelligence matters. Members of the House and Senate select committees on intelligence have access to much of the intelligence data the administration has. This means that several members of both houses of Congress had access to this supposedly solid intelligence. Yet no one raised an objection. The closest anyone came was Senator Joe Biden from Delaware who questioned the administration's interpretations. Not even his own party followed up on Biden's uncertainty. In fact, we now know that members of Congress did not even investigate the intelligence information! Instead, facing reelection, Congress meekly acquiesced to the administration and voted to authorize war.

We common folk have no access to the confidential intelligence data that was purported to justify the war. Nor should we have such access. We are therefore forced to rely on our elected officials to do their jobs. If there are questions about the interpretations of intelligence, we rely on the members of the oversight committees to open their mouths and say so. At the very least, we rely on them to actually look at the data. As members of Congress charged with oversight, they have an obligation to the nation that transcends political party and election-year posturing. They failed us!

I have longed admired Britain's Tony Blair. But you have to also admire Blair's cabinet officials who put their duty to the British people ahead of the Labor party and resigned from government in protest of what they realized was an unjustified war. Contrast this to US Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to Bob Woodward's recent book, Powell had many reservations about going to war. He even voiced these reservations to other members of the cabinet, and even the president. But when push came to shove, he backed down and followed the president's lead, arguing a case that now appears so ridiculous. And Powell is a former 4 star general in the Army who saw combat in Vietnam! He ought to know better!

We have to face facts, here. There was a bipartisan failure, verging on betrayal, by the US Congress to perform their duties. This failure allowed the president to wage an unjustified and ill-conceived war for which the United States will pay in various ways for years to come. Voters need to keep this in mind as the fall elections approach. This time, we should choose people in Congress and the White House who will actually do their jobs!

The Pledge of Allegiance

[Originally published 4/19/2004]

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic
for which it stands,
one nation,
under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all

The pledge is recited regularly by schoolchildren all over the United States, and in many other contexts as well. It has become one of the most recognizable symbols of patriotism in the country. Currently, the legality of one clause in the pledge--under God--is being considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue is the constitutional restriction imposed on the government that it cannot establish a national religion or restrict freedom of religion ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). The 9th circuit court has ruled that the clause is unconstitutional because it establishes religion. Many conservatives have been outraged by the decision and are fighting it in the court, in the name of defending the pledge.

Now, it should be quite obvious that mentioning God and affirming the nation's status before this entity is, in fact, a religious statement. Having students make such a religious statement is therefore tantamount to having them recognize some religious point of view. It again should be obvious that this is contrary to the 1st ammendment. In reading commentary on the case, I have learned that there is a legal principle that could be invoked to defend the clause: ceremonial deism. This is a view that argues that the phrase is merely an acknowledgement of the religious heritage of the nation; the religious element of the statement is essentially meaningless. I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ. One would expect, therefore, that I would support keeping the "under God" clause like so many of my Christian brothers and sisters. But I cannot, for multiple reasons.

First, the ceremonial deism argument basically says that the acknowledgement of God is meaningless. Well, one of the commandments is that we will not take the name of the Lord in vain. Common understanding of that commandment is that it means we are not to use God's name as swear words. But what it really means is that we are not to invoke God's name in an empty, meaningless context. Saying "God damn", unless you are entreating God to condemn or damn something, is invoking God's name in a meaningless way. To say that we are a nation under God, and have that mention of God be meaningless is a violation of the 10 commandments! But if it is not meaningless but rather a true acknowledgement of God, then it is clearly a violation of the Constitution. Either way, I cannot support the legality of this clause.

Second, as a believer I cannot reconcile pledging my allegiance to either a flag (which smacks of idolatry) or to a nation. As Christians, we are to have one and only one allegiance: to God. Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. Inevitably, the two masters compete for your loyalty, and it is always easier in the moment to serve the other master rather than God. I am not saying I am not patriotic, nor am I speaking against loyalty to my country. Not at all. But my allegiance must only be to God, never to anything else.

Starting here

I started posting my thought at my Geocities web site. I would like to try a real blogging system instead, so here I am. I have migrated some of my most recent posts to the blog.