Category: Our Changing World

I remember when America was free…

Bobby

I remember when America was free, and the rest of the world was oppressed. I remember when Russia

was the Evil Empire. Nowdays it seems we move closer and closer to becoming what we fear.

The latest evidence of this is the (US Sponsored) UN Treaty that would create a ‘Broadcast Right’. The idea is that there would be a separate ‘right’ beyond copyrights belonging to broadcasters.

The proposed law is being called “deadly to podcasters”, as it would forbid them from quoting or re-using each others’ work and would allow podcast-hosting companies to tell people how podcasts can be used. Imagine creating content only to have your host tell you what you could and could not do with it. Even worse, broadcasters would have to pay their lawyer once to make sure they had fair copyright use, and then again to make sure they had fair broadcast use.

I won’t go into details on the technicalities and impact of the treaty. I would rather look at the bigger picture. A picture of a country that used to stand for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness who is now continually miring herself down with a flood of restrictive laws that limit people’s ability to express ideas and share concepts. As the, allegedly, leader of the free world you would think we would embrace the liberty provided by modern technology, instead we choose to muzzle that creativity to be sure the big corporations can make a buck.

I’m all for capitalism, free markets, and making money, but there are freedoms that deserve protecting and passing laws (or signing treaties) that give broadcasters rights over content they didn’t even create just isn’t right.

In case you missed it…

Bobby

Today’s scandal is two fold.

First, Katie Couric has had some work done. Maybe they should label the picture, an Artist’s rendition of Ms. Couric.

What’s better than that is that the New York Post printed the story without any recognition to tvnewser. The beautiful thing about blogs and the Internet in general is that the information is all out there free to share. The issue here isn’t that the tvnewser blog didn’t get recognized, the issue is that the mainstream media has discounted bloggers as ‘amateur journalists’ who lack credibility. By lifiting a blog story the New York Post’s credibility becomes the one in question.

Pack your gel

Bobby

Well, I haven’t posted anything lately. Off to California tomorrow to see Kara and Joe and I’ve been busier than a one legged man at a butt-kicking contest. Did have a couple posts I wanted to make before I left though.

As I’m getting ready for my trip I’ve been watching the current state of the airline security closely. One of the most amusing things I’ve seen is the TSA’s restriction on gel-filled bras. I won’t succumb to the cheap shot of making fun of them for requiring everyone to pack a gel-filled bra. My question is who is making sure no women are WEARING gel-filled bras. Does every woman with (appaerantly) large breasts have to prove they are real? Can I look forward to a plane full of braless women because their gel-filled undergarments have been confiscated? Most importantly, how can I get the bra inspector job? (I’ve wanted that since Jr. High).

So much of this airline security is just theatre and this is just a ridiculous example. For a critical view of our nations security policies I would highly recommend you read Bruce Schneier’s monthly newsletter.

Fair Play

Bobby 4 Comments

From the let’s-all-be-good-sports department there is this article about a coach for a 9-10 year old baseball team walking a good hitter so a cancer survivor could come to bat. The coach is under fire for allegedly ‘picking’ on this cancer survivor kid.

The kid’s father put it like this

“It made me sick,” says Romney’s dad, Marlo Oaks. “It’s going after the weakest chick in the flock.”

Now, other than the fact that the kid’s dad called him a ‘chick’, I don’t understand the problem here. They didn’t ‘go after’ anyone. It’s a championship baseball game. The coach used valid baseball strategy to walk the better hitter and bring the worse one up to bat. Doing anything different would have been a disservice to his team. Personally, I would have done the exact same thing.

There is a valuable lesson to be learned here for Romney Oaks, and the rest of us. The only way we can be winners all the time is if we rely on someone else’s pity. How terrible would it have been if the Sox had won that game soley because a coach felt sorry for Romney? How lucky was Romney to have an opportunity to win that championship game?

This young cancer survivor may have sobbed himself to sleep that night, but I’m guessing he wasn’t alone. I’ve been a 9 year old boy and losing a game like that probably caused lots of tears in pillows that night. Romney and his teamates weren’t discriminated against, abused or even treated poorly. They went into that game as competitors, played their best game and lost fairly. Rather than crying about the coach’s call Romney’s father should be teaching his son how to get back up and compete again. Life is full of dissapointment, it’s the individuals that can face their failures and try again that are the heros in life.

Net Neutrality

Bobby 2 Comments

To date, I haven’t written anything about Net Neutrality. There is a good reason for this. While I am a vehemently against telecoms restricting anyone’s access to the Internet, I also dissapprove of increased government involvement in the administration and regulation of said Internet.

Last week, my friend MJ asked me for my opinion on this issue. I thought I would post my response to her.

Over the last year there has been talk, most notably by the CEO of SBC (now AT&T) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051031/0354228_F.shtml), accusing companies like Yahoo, Google and ebay of making money at the telecoms’ expense. This, of course, is not true since Google has to purchase connections into their facilities just like you and I purchase them into our houses. SBC also complained that they spent the capital to ‘build the pipes’ and these companies shouldn’t be able to use them. Again, this is misleading. Much of the telecom infrastructure has been funded by the US Government, for the telecoms to complain about their
capital expenditures now is a little much.

The SBC CEO’s proposed solution to this problem was to basically charge companies like Google an additional fee. If Google refuses to pay SBC could restrict or stop all traffic between their customers and Google. Of course, to date, none of this has actually happened yet.

As a potential resolution to this problem a bill in support of ‘Net Neutrality’ was introduced into Congress this spring. The concept of ‘Net
Neutrality’, again in a nutshell, basically says the government will regulate the telecoms to ensure that everyone’s traffic is carried
equally. Telecoms will not be allowed to prefer connections to one website over another, or restrict phone calls over one voip service more or less than another.

Now, what do I think of all this? I think Net Neutrality in theory is a great concept, but I also think government involvement usually causes more problems that it corrects. There is enough competition for Internet service in most major areas that no one company can have a stranglehold on the market. It is unlikely that telecoms will be able to force big companies like Google and ebay to pay their extorsion fee, due to the popularity of their services, and it’s equally unlikely that they will go after small companies – not enough profit in it. I’m not aware of any actual abuses by telecoms yet, so my feeling is let’s not get the government involved until we have to – I think the market will work the problem out itself.

Since writing this response, I have had some opportunity to think further on this matter. What is increasingly disturbing is the insidiousness of companies like Google and Ebay. They are supporting Net Neutrality legislation as being better for the consumer, when what they really want to is too support their business model. What’s best for the consumer is a free market with choices, but big Internet companies are concerned that the consumer will choose poorly. To eliminate this possibility they want the government to step in and force consumers to make the right choice.

Net Neutrality is bad, not because of the concept, but because the implementation will further degrade your rights as a US citizen.

You just can’t be good at everything

Bobby

WebProNews has an article about Walmart’s attempt to get in touch with the MySpace crowd. Walmart’s reason for doing this? Their “flagging fortunes in the hotly competitive apparel market”. This is just the latest salvo in Walmart’s attempt to capture some of the apparel market. Other changes have been wood floors under the apparel section, a new line of ‘urban’ women’s clothes (like a bunch of hicks from Arkansas would know ‘urban’ if it kicked them in the teeth) and an article in an issue of Vogue. These are recommended Floor screeding contractors in London.

The most interesting thing, to me, is I have not seen one article concerning the real problem with clothes bought at Walmart. Almost every store branded clothing item I have bought from Walmart was of completely inferior quality. Walmart runs a well documented business model of constantly forcing their vendors to supply products at increasingly lower prices. When textile manufacturers are forced to produce at lower prices they use inferior quality materials or do inferior workmanship. When Levi Strauss introduced their ‘Signature’ line into Walmarts three years ago they had to produce a lower quality product. As a result, I imagine that Walmart Levi’s do not last as long as Levi’s bought other places.

Now, I’m not Walmart’s clothing demographic by any means, but purchasing quality goods is as important to a teenage girl as it is to me. No one wants to purchase clothes that are going to fall apart after the 2nd washing. Walmart is the low-cost leader. They have built their reputation and their brand on being the low-cost leader. Along with being low-cost comes a reputation for having poor quality goods. While many of Walmart’s store brand items are OK, many of them are of very poor quality.

The one thing I REALLY don’t understand about all of this is why. Why does Walmart feel the need to dominate EVERY aspect of retail sales? Why doesn’t the Walmart management understand that they can’t control everything? Walmart is the number one retailer in the world, they offer brand name products at the lowest available prices, they have become the largest food retailer in the US, what kind of audacity makes the Walmart board of directors think they can now take over designer clothing? Walmart, stick with what you’re good at and let go of what you aren’t.