It’s all about where you draw the line

Note: This article appears backdated because it was delayed by technical difficulties.

A week or so ago I received a phone call from a polling organization. I donate money from time to time to political organizations, including various conservative organizations and candidates, and the NRA, so I get lots of political mail soliciting more donations, and for the past few years, the occasional phone call.

This one was asking me for my opinion. It sounded like your average poll — “Do you support X Very Much, Somewhat, Somewhat Against, or Very Much Against?” and so forth.

This one was unusual, though, for a couple reasons. First, it was unusually long. They asked several general questions about what causes and ideas I support, and then they moved into a section regarding two local candidates for Congress.

This last part was the interesting part, because it’s where the poll suddenly veered into the realm of dirty politics. The guy said “Okay, I’m going to give you arguments why you might vote against [the Democrat]. These are reasons given by his opponents. Tell me if this reason would influence you a lot to support the candidate, somewhat to support him, somewhat against him, or a lot against him.” There were a whole bunch of these , probably fifteen or twenty. Then he moved on to reasons to vote for the Democrat — these of course being the arguments made by his supporters. Again with the range of for/against for each argument. Then he moved on to the reasons to vote against the Republican, and finally…

“Okay, that’s the end of the questions. Thanks and you have a good night.”

Did you notice the problem there? I think the idea is that they ask you so many damned questions that by the time he says he’s done, you’re happy to hang up. What he’s hoping you didn’t notice what that he never got around to naming any of the reasons people give to vote for the Republican. First, against the Dem, then FOR the Dem, then AGAINST the Republican. This completes our impartial poll. ‘Night folks!

It’s called a “push poll“. It’s illegal in some areas, though not mine, and incredibly unethical. Admittedly, this one was a bit more subtle than most. It’s a new tactic I haven’t heard of before — the poll would have been legit if they’d only balanced the equation.

Illinois politics is such a goddamned embarrassment. Still these hypocrites get elected. Vote early and vote often, as they say.

(in case you didn’t get the title….)

It’s not too hard folks….

(more…)

Via TJIC:

So, you get a gun.

You get ammunition.

You load the gun.

You call a cab to pick you up at the end of a dead end street … even though you don’t need to go anywhere.

When the cab arrives, you point the gun at the driver’s head and say something like “give me your money or I’ll kill you”.

And then - “even though you didn’t mean to” - an “accident” happens, and the gun “goes off”.

Ooops!

The post title contains pretty much everything I have to say about this. “Accident” my ass — what, you weren’t expecting him to struggle or something?

Even if he didn’t intend to actually pull the trigger in the end, that distinction is inconsequential.

Interesting post from Maynard over at Tammy’s place. A story from the Old Testament, and an interesting take on modern politics.

A manipulative advisor had convinced the King to issue an edict to exterminate the Jews. Upon realizing his error…

7 King Xerxes replied to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew, “Because Haman attacked the Jews, I have given his estate to Esther, and they have hanged him on the gallows.

8 Now write another decree in the king’s name in behalf of the Jews as seems best to you, and seal it with the king’s signet ring — for no document written in the king’s name and sealed with his ring can be revoked.”

Quick show of hands: Who knows what the new decree was?

Interesting to note that the Jews actually have a holiday to celebrate this.

Go read.

Everything you think you know about Love Canal is wrong.

Citizens: Eek - there is goo in our front yard! And in the playgrounds! Aiiii!

Local Government: Well .. I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! We had no idea.

National Government: We’ll save you ma’am, from the folly of short-sighted businessmen in the pursuit of the almighty dollar! Take THAT you fiend (POW) and that (KA-BLAM)!

Citizens: Thanks God for the government, the righter of wrongs and the leveler of playing fields!

That’s the end of the story. It’s the beginning part that’s interesting.

Go read.

Why I will, never, ever promote or support any type of gun control, “reasonable” restrictions, or waiting periods….
(more…)

Jeff comments on a recent kerfuffle in which a Fox affiliate station in Texas did an “ambush” report on a gun owner. The video has been making the rounds in blogs, and the station has since tried very hard to clamp down on it — threatening legal action against people who show or distribute it. He states:

Claiming that “they’re trying to send it down the memory hole” or saying that “this is the video they don’t want you to see” utterly fails to justify your act of theft.

When you make a copy of that video, you’re stealing the television station’s property. Just as surely as you would be if you broke into their studio and stole the videotape.

I think there’s a distinction here, Jeff.

Fox was doing a report on gun owners. In the process, the report itself became news. People aren’t distributing this for the subject of the report (that is, guns), but because of the manner in which it was reported.

I see this entirely as fair use. If I post an appropriate clip of the video and talk about my opinion of their “ambush”, I am reporting about Fox itself.

“Here’s a report about gun control” would be stealing it. “Look at how they did this report” is fair use. Yes, context does matter. Invoking copyright to cover up something you did wrong doesn’t fly — or shouldn’t.

It reminds me a bit of Scientologists copyrighting their sacred texts, and then suing the crap out of anybody who says anything publicly about them. (Because to comment on them you actually have to show them to someone, and that violates their copyright….) (And as a side note: any religion that jealously hides what exactly it is they worship is deserving of suspicion.)

The NFL has (or had) a disclaimer on their broadcasts that claimed that (among other things) restating the events of the broadcast without permission was prohibited by copyright law. This is legally absurd, as you cannot copyright an event. That is, you can’t copyright something that happened. A law professor made a short documentary commenting on the legal absurdity of that disclaimer, and showed the disclaimer itself. They immediately sued her for copyright violation, for having shown the copyright statement.

In the United States, copyright is, legally speaking, not there for the sake of the creators directly, but for the good of society in advancing the creation of creative works.

Showing that newsclip might not be good for Fox’s business, but not for reasons covered by copyright. It’s bad because it harms their reputation, not because it steals their creative effort.

Or to put it another way, copyright is there so that creators can have the benefit of their creation, not so they can hide from their actions.

The following is an open letter to James Taranto, in response to the item “Self-Chosen People” in the October 3, 2007 issue of the “Best of the Web” newsletter, which is distributed by the Wall Street journal:

Dear Mr. Taranto,

I understand that the loud ones are the ones who make the news, but I wish you would stop labeling people such as [Richard] Dawkins simply as “atheists”. It is an act akin to pointing to a televangelist and saying, “that’s what Christians are like.”

While Dawkins is certainly an atheist, he makes the news because he is, more specifically, an anti-theist. Atheists do not believe in God. Anti-theists actively fight against religion. There is a rather large distinction between those two.

Through the Internet, (especially blogs) I have come to know a great number of highly intelligent and reasoned atheists. Steven Den Beste, who has been published in the Wall Street Journal, comes to mind. (You can see examples of his writing at <http://denbeste.nu/bestof.shtml>.) Dawkins and his ilk are more prominent as atheists because atheism itself is a crusade for them. The vast majority of us are quite content to let people believe what they choose to believe. As such, we remain largely invisible.

Sincerely,

Stephen Rider

Jeff writes an impassioned plea for support of a new proposed law: The Suzanne Gonzales Suicide Prevention Act of 2007. Suzanne (”Suzy”) was a 19-year-old girl who committed suicide in 2003, having been essentially manipulated into doing so by members of an Internet message board. Jeff wrote about it at the time: The Shape of Days.

The bill, in Jeff’s words, is:

H.R. 940, the Suzanne Gonzales Suicide Prevention Act of 2007. It’s not a long piece of legislation. The bill, if passed, would make it a crime to knowingly use the Internet to teach someone or help someone to commit suicide.

I know where Jeff is coming from in supporting this. I very much believe in promoting a “culture of life” — I’m strongly pro-life/anti-abortion, for example. I’ve been reading Jeff’s stuff and commenting for a long time now, and I respect the man, but I’m a little wary of this. I’m not even playing “devil’s advocate” here — I don’t know on which side I stand.

A few things to think about:

1. What happened to Suzy was horrible, but it’s a particular instance. Passing laws from that one story reminds me of Democrats pushing their latest socialist schemes by trotting out some poor hapless granny who’s eating dogfood. Laws based on tugged heartstrings are generally not the best, in the long run.
2. Part of the nature of the Internet is that it can easily serve as an echo chamber. This can be good or bad, but generally I think limiting ideas is more bad than good.
3. Suzy hit the wrong site at the wrong time, and the “echo” she got was horrible. What the people there did was wrong, but I think the law takes the wrong approach by silencing discussion of suicide (yes, even “how to” discussion).
4. What, specifically, is the point of this law being limited to the Internet? Speech is speech, and incitement is incitement. Arguments related to what’s done on the Internet would also apply to what’s done in person, or on the phone, or…. I’m also wary of any law that specifies a particular technology, because they tend to do weird things years down the road when technology changes in ways the lawmakers didn’t (and couldn’t) foresee. [Update: Upon reading the text of the bill, I note that it does not specify the technology, but instead refers to "any facility of interstate or foreign commerce". This makes sense for jurisdictional purposes, but, it should be pointed out, includes "facilities" such as roads.]
5. It is currently illegal to directly incite somebody to violence with words. If I get somebody riled up and convince them to go kick someone’s ass, and the attackee gets killed, _I_ can be held responsible. Perhaps a better solution would be a slightly modified version of this. Directly inciting suicide (self-violence) to somebody who otherwise likely would not have done so should be illegal. For that matter, do the existing laws against inciting violence apply to violence against the “attacker’s” own person?

Suzy was a 19 year old girl. Teenagers are emotionally vulnerable as it is, and these vultures swooped in. But what about the 50-year-old who decides to take his own life? Not an impulse decision, but a considered decision? Our society basically assumes that any person who desires death is… what… insane? At the least, “wrong”. I’m… uncomfortable with this assumption being automatic for all cases.

Preying on the emotionally vulnerable is wrong, and it’s legitimate for the law to step in. But as one of Jeff’s commenters points out, this law allows for no gray area.

[Update: I originally stated that her age was 13. Jeff informs that she was 19. Corrected text above.]

In response to Ameni… Amedin… the President of Iran’s¹ visit to New York, and subsequent talk at Columbia University, Maynard at Tammy’ Bruce’s blog had this to say:

When a reprehensible argument appears on the surface to be reasonable, you’ve got to look for the joker in the deck. There’s usually a ridiculous underlying assumption that you have implicitly accepted without realizing it. Case in point: Yes, there is some merit to the argument that we should be exposed to “diverse and upsetting ideas”. For example, if Ahmadinejad were saying that Hitler’s murdering the Jews was a good thing, then that would arguably constitute a “diverse and upsetting idea”. But to allege that the Holocaust never happened is not an idea, it’s a lie. It’s not a matter of opinion; it happened. This perceived obligation to propagate the evil deceits of a genocidal maniac is not the hallmark of an elite educational establishment, but rather the sign of a lunatic asylum.

The thing I like about that argument is that it applies far beyond the specific situation he’s referring to. This is a beautiful illustration of what is so wrong with a lot of political discourse these days.

1: Ahmadinejihad