Quote of the month

"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." - Barack Obama, presidential candidate 2008. Could he really be that honest?

Fearmongers

How long we have been subjected to the incessant talk about recession? A year? More? I have this unfortunate habit of listening to NPR in the morning, while eating breakfast, and then at dinnertime, so I have had plenty of exposure to the not-so-subtle message that we should all be very afraid. They have been laying it pretty thick, really. They've brought in economists, who confirmed time and again that things are so bad, they hadn't seen it that bad in their lifetimes... If it's not a recession yet, it's for sure just around the corner. Heck, they've been feeding us stories about the Great Depression! (So it's not about Recession anymore... It's the Great Depression we're staring in the face!)

What's with this fear-mongering? I know that the US economy is not doing great at the moment, and that the housing crisis is very real. But why do I hear glee in the voices of NPR reporters emphasizing the negative? Whenever there is good economic news, it's always followed by "but.." or "however..." It's approching parody, like the recent headline that read: "Gas prices are falling and why this not such a good thing." Sweet Jesus! We've been talked to ad nauseam about how the high price of gas is straining the economy, with SUVs clogging the dealearships, carmakers laying off workers, food prices going up, etc, etc. Now, when the oil prices seem to be showing a downward trend, we ought to be worrying that it is not a good thing after all! What the bloody hell?

The naive explanation is that "good news is no news" and that the media simply has to feed on bad news, and if there isn't any, it'll create it. However, I think that there is a deeper layer to it, and his name is Barack Obama. The media is so invested in having him win the presidency that it uses all tricks at its disposal to promote his candidacy, short of telling us straight to vote for him. I'm certain the talk of recession is a part of it. The more we're scared, the more we will be willing to embrace the "change" Obama is promising. There is very little doubt in my mind that, should he win, the word "recession" will quickly disappear from the media's coverage of the economy.

There is a precedent: remember the 1992 election, when George Bush the Elder was defeated with "It's the ecomomy, stupid!"? Back then the media whipped up the bad news about the economy, to almost immediately change its tune after Clinton's victory. It's as if the election magically cured whatever was ailing the US stock market. It's the same screenbook, different actors.

However, I do wonder if they are not going to overplay their hand this time. I can't be the only one who's noticing the pattern here. And there is also a different pattern that manifested itself in past elections: the media thinks that the American electorate is stupid and can be easily manipulated. Yet time and again they've been proven wrong on that score. I'm fairly positive it will repeat itself as well. Unlike the media, I have quite a bit of trust in the voting public.

Evil DRM

I have always believed in paying artists for their work. This included, of course, music. Except for a short-lived "lets give it a try and see what the fuss is about", I did not participate in peer-to-peer sharing. Early on I signed up for the subscription-based Musicmatch, and was pretty happy with it, occasionally buying songs and creating compilations for listening in my car. Obviously, I did not expect that I will end up feeling like a total sucker, thanks to that evil scheme that must have been concocted in the devil's head: DRM (Digital Rights Management).

I had misgivings about it from the very beginning; initially. Musicmatch restricted transfer of purchased songs to a limited number of instances (5 or 7 in a lifetime, if I remember correctly). I was not planning to buy an MP3 player any time soon, but I had a laptop and a desktop, which I used to replace every 2-3 years. This meant that only after two replacement cycles I would no longer be able to transfer my music to new machines. What then? Luckily, this was amended later and I could only have 3 "active" devices at any time, but I could "deactivate" a device, and transfer purchased songs to a new one. This looked like I could keep moving the music I owned from one computer to another for as long as I lived.

I had no idea that the licenses for my songs were tied to the service I bought it from: Musicmatch. So when Musicmatch was acquired by Yahoo!, I faced the real prospect of losing the ability to transfer my songs, unless I agreed to move to the new service, which would then continue to provide the licenses. I did move and for a while everything seemed fine, except that every now and then the DRM system used by Yahoo! would stop recognizing my ownership of certain tracks and would force me to re-license them. This was but the first circle of the DRM hell...

A few days ago I found out that 40 of my songs were no longer showing as licensed... My attemtp to re-license them produced errors that Musicmatch was no longer available... This, many months after I transfered my subscription to Yahoo! and all my songs to their DRM system.  What the bloody hell?? When I contacted Yahoo! customer service, the answer I received was that since these songs had been purchased from Musicmatch, they could no longer help me with licensing... Musicmatch no longer existed.

Well, I knew that! So I argued that I transferred to Yahoo! and expected Yahoo! to provide licenses for these songs, as I had been promised. This generated a response that "it does not matter where you transferred them. It only matters that they were purchased from Musicmatch". This is just too f..d up to comprehend! Imagine buying a CD from your local music store. This CD will play only for as long as that store remains in business. A new chain takes over the store and agrees to keep allowing you to play the CD, if you continue to buy music from them. Then, one day, you still have your CD in pristine condition, but it stops playing. You complain and hear, "Sorry, but you bought this CD from someone else. Can't help you".  If that's not getting screwed, I don't know what is...

So I feel like a total idiot for being honest and law-abiding, and getting suckered into the game of Let's Screw the Loyal Music Fans Who Actually Want to Pay Us Money. Would you buy a CD, whose playback depended on the existence of the store you bough it from? Or a car that runs only for as long as the dealer that sold it to you is still in business? You would not even consider such a deal, beacuse that would not be a deal, that would be a con. And that's exactly what was done to me (and countless other): we were conned. 

Now Yahoo! is getting out of the music business and offering its customers transfer to Rhapsody. I'm afraid that this will just push me deeper into the DRM hell, so I think I will decline. Should I reconsider my decision not to be a part of "illegal" sharing?  Well, if the "legal" side of this business means that I'm getting robbed at will, then I think the answer to that is not as simple as I thought it to be.

On blogging

It's been a long while since I've posted to this blog... Primarily because it was spring, and now it is summer, with so many better things to do than sit in front of a computer. Or worry about politics, for that matter. I've been going back and forth about whether to pick this up at all, trying to answer a seemingly simple question: why am I doing this? I am not a compulsive writer, so I don't really have to write. I also know that what I'm writing here can come back to haunt me. After all, I work at a university, where views like mine are probably in minority, or at least not openly expressed. Someone had already complained about my views, or so I heard... So I probably shouldn't write. Yet these are some of the reasons why I do post things on my website and on my blog: I want to try to find my voice and I don't want to succumb to fear, which seems to be permeating this society. (Note: I'm planning to cover this particular issue in a subsequent post).

I do a lot of thinking, and sometimes in a way too fragmented a manner, and writing helps me slow down, formulate my thoughts, think about something for a while, instead of jumping from one issue to another like a dragonfly on speed. I also want to assert my right to speak my mind. It's a basic human right, dammit! If what I write disturbs you, don't read it. There are mllions, perhaps billions other pages on the Web - go and find something you like. Disagreement is OK, it's even welcome. I don't claim that I know everything or that my views are not subject to change. They are, and I can be persuaded that I was wrong and someone else was right.  What are really hate are people who think that views different from theirs should be supressed, and people who hold them, punished. There are depressingly many such people in the United States. Perhaps fewer than in most (all?) other countries, but still...

Presidential address

I got this in e-mail today, and I think it's quite good.

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH? (Oh yes, it would.)

My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT'LL GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WON'T GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany , and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America. Thank you and good night.

Quotes of the week

There are numerous great quotes in the fascinating and much needed bestseller by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism", but here are two good ones I just remembered to copy:

Fascists famously ruled by terror. Political correctness isn't literally terroristic, but it does govern through fear. No serious person can deny that the grievance politics of the American left keeps decent people in a constant state of fright--they are afraid to say the wrong word, utter the wrong thought, offend the wrong constituency.

But if there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Dying with dignity

My wife bought me this little book for Christmas, "Tuesdays with Morrie" by Mitch Albom. Apparently it was (is?) quite a bestseller, and there was even a movie  based (loosely) on it, under the same title. The book is mostly an account of 14 conversations the author had with Morrie Schwartz, his favorite professor from his university days, who had been diagnosed with ALS ("Lou Gehrig Disease"), and who eventually succumbed to the disease after a 6-month struggle.

 Although "struggle" is not a good choice of a word here, considering that Morrie didn't seem to be "fighting" the illness so much as accepting it, even learning from it. From the vantage point of a man with an irrevocable death sentence, Morrie is dispensing wisdom on everything: from culture, to marriage, to emotions, to money, to death. This book moved me and annoyed me.  It moved me because I could not help but admire his nearly stoic attitude toward his terrible physical deterioration and the suffering that came with it - not that it would necessarily have been my choice in similar circumstances.  

The sense of annoyance came from many angles. Only a small part was caused by the fact that a lot of the wisom being passed onto the reader was pretty trivial and terribly cliché: money doesn't buy happiness; we will all die eventually; having a sense of purpose in life makes it worthwhile; family and friends are very important; we are living too fast; ours is a materialistic society; etc. After all, having had these pearls of wisdom repeated ad nauseam doesn't make them less valid.

What frustrated me the most didn't even have to do anything with Morrie himself, or what he said. It was this: here's a sweet, smart, old guy, who made the choice of waiting for his death, of enduring whatever pain and indignity were thrown his way. He also made a decision to be increasingly dependent on others, including having his ass wiped. (He feared that moment, considering this a kind of a threshold of humiliation, and yet he quickly adjusted to it, even... enjoyed it to some extent, comparing his dependence to that of a child...) He was celebrated for it - NBC's Ted Koppel interviewed him three times, at different stages of the disease. Scores of people came to visit him, many more wrote him letters. Obviously, he inspired a lot of people. That's great. But what about the people who want to make a different choice?

 There are those of us, who don't want to follow Mr. Schwartz's path, passively waiting for nature to take its course, in whatever cruel manner it chooses. Those, who would prefer to choose the moment and maner od their death themselves. Isn't it a legitimate and noble choice, worth celebrating? The book talks about the kind of dying that allows to say final good-byes, and be surrounded by one's loved ones while doing so. If that's so desireable - and it is - what is then wrong with saying good-byes and then quietly and peacefully taking one's own life?

People who help a dying person by adjusting his pillows, tending to his sores, dulling his pain with potent painkillers, and  yes, wiping his ass, are admired as persons of compassion. Rightly so. At the same time those who would help that person die with dignity by committing suicide are treated as villains, threatened with jail. Why is one kind of compassion better than the other? Why isn't it considered an inalienable human right to refuse to endure the pain and indignity of a terrible illness? We have laws against torturing people, and would applaud if someone helped a victim of torture run away from his tormentors. We would condemn a doctor working alongside the torturers, who is making sure that the victim doesn't die prematurely and will be able to endure more pain. Why is then OK for nature to torture people and for doctors to be enablers, who prolong the agony?

I know, there are guns, and rope, and poison, and sharp blades, and plastic bags, and tall buildings, and myriad other ways by which people can kill themselves if they want to. But what if they can't? What if they are paralyzed and unable to pull the trigger, unable to get to the top floor of a parking structure to jump off from? And what about the dignity? There is nothing dignified in a wife coming home to find her terminally ill husband with his head blown off. Or hanging from the rafters in the garage.

Of course, there is the "slippery slope" argument: if we make dying nice and easy, will we start nudging at first, and then pressuring ill people toward that easy way out? And what about those suffering from depression, who would now find it so much easier to act on their impulses? Those are legitimate concerns, but shouldn't our advanced society be able to address them? Shouldn't we at least start talking about ways of addressing them?

Tellingly, even Morrie had his limits of acceptance. In his final interview with Ted Koppel he mentioned

 "other people who suffered from ALS [...], some of them famous, such as the brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking [...] He lived with a hole in his throat, spoke through a computer synthesizer, typed words by batting his eyes as a sensor picked up the movement. This was admirable, but this was not the way Morrie wanted to live. "

 What if he was dealt this kind of card? Would there still be a bestseller about Morrie Schwartz, the mild-mannered professor who stoically endured to the end?