May 29, 2003

Whackamole Redux

The Internet sales tax story is back, and full of the usual spin, lies, errors and distortions. Argghh!

Tennessee is poised to join an elite group of states planning to simplify their tax codes and become part of a governing body that would create a national standard for collecting taxes on Internet and mail-order sales.

Legislation moved swiftly and unexpectedly through various state House and Senate committees yesterday. It is part of a national effort to persuade Congress to allow the states to impose such a tax. The full House and Senate are scheduled to take up the measure today.

State officials estimate Tennessee will lose $300 million this year in uncollected sales tax revenue because of Internet and catalog sales. That figure could balloon to $1 billion by 2007, said Sen. Bill Clabough, R-Maryville, the bill's sponsor. ''This is the most important bill I wanted to carry and pass,'' he said, noting that Tennessee depends heavily on the sales tax to fund government. ''I don't know if we can afford not to pass this bill.''

In the interest of fairness and just plain ol' accuracy, The Tennessean owes its readers the inclusion of the DMA's study in its reportage on the Internet sales tax issue. As the DMA study conflicts with the paper's agenda of pushing for higher taxes, I doubt you'll get it.

If it becomes law, changes to the state's tax code would not be effective until two quarters after the national effort takes effect. That would be when states representing 20% of the country's population have signed on.

The legislation does not for the most part change how much taxpayers owe in sales taxes, [Revenue Commissioner Loren] Chumley said.

The sad part is, some editor at The Tennessean who knows nothing about the DMA study and is unaware of the constitutional issues at stake probably read the story and told the reporter she did a good job on it. Meanwhile, the people of Tennessee are once again being subjected to agenda-driven mis-reporting on an issue involving taxation, and the governor's administration is apparently again setting tax policy based on bad economic forecasts from the University of Tennessee.

It's like Gov. Don Sundquist never left.

UPDATE: The bill passed the House the bill passed 71-15-10 with 3 members not voting. That means a lot of supposedly anti-tax Republicans and moderate Democrats just voted to raise your taxes.

You'd think I would have found that out via news update on The Tennessean's web site, but you would be wrong. I learned it from an email from a legislative staffer who reads my blog. The Tennessean is posting more "news updates" on its website these days, but, weirdly, not posting updates to stories from the print edition that are carried on the site.

May 28, 2003

Signs of the Recovery

Signs of the Recovery
The NASDAQ has reached an 11-month high...

May 27, 2003

Attention Terrorists: Tennessee a Weak

Tennessee continues to be governed by idiots who think it makes sense in the age of terrorism to give undocumented criminals a legal ID card. Several of the September 11 hijackers used similar weak driver licensing laws in Virginia and Florida to get valid driver licenses, without which it would have been difficult to board a plane. Why officials and, apparently, most legislators in Tennessee can't grasp this basic concept and shut off the supply of drivers licenses to illegal aliens is beyond me.

May 22, 2003

Whackamole Time, Again

That discredited University of Tennessee study claiming huge tax revenue losses due to ecommerce is still being treated as fact by seemingly intelligent publications. The latest is CFO magazine in this story at CFO.com, which says:

A University of Tennessee study showed that states probably lost around $13 billion in lost taxes on Internet purchases in 2002. That study also predicted states would lose $46 billion in lost online taxes by 2006 - unless on-line merchants are required to assess and remit sales tax.

The CFO.com story doesn't mention the DMA's study. If you can't trust the magazine for the nation's certified financial officers to be fair, accurate, and get the numbers right, who can you trust?

May 19, 2003

The NYT and Blogging

The New York Times doesn't like blogging. So, every so often, it publishes a piece about the perils of blogging. Today's peril: bloggers aren't journalists, so they might publish something that's untrue or offensive. The story implies bloggers need editors. Dana Blankenhorn has a hilarious retort. And he's dead right about journalism not being difficult. Which is why blogs are going to alter journalism in ways Big Journalism doesn't get - at its peril.

May 16, 2003

Hope for the Worst

What is at the core of the Democrats' strategy to wrest the White House from George W. Bush? Hope for the worst, says this story by AP political writer Ron Fournier:

Democrats, who are fielding nine candidates in search of the presidential nomination, believe that continued economic woes, problems in postwar Iraq or even another terrorist strike on U.S. soil could change Bush's political fortunes.

Disgusting. No, worse than that.

That some Democrats running for president are staking their political future on the expectation and perhaps even the hope that one or all three of the above issues will go badly for Bush indicates a party that has lost its heart, soul and mind.

UPDATE: Over at South Knox Bubba's blog, they seem to have lost the ability to read and react to things in context. As a result, I'm being accused of saying that millions of Democrats wish for a bad economy, an Iraqi calamity and a terror attack. Of course, I never said that - not when you carefully examine the totality of my post and the article which I was commenting on. It's called context.

My post was written as commentary on a specific paragaph within a specific article, which I linked to, in which the writer of that article - not me - said Democrats (and its clear from the context of his article he was talking about top national Democrat strategists and candidates, not SKB's mom or your neighbor) were banking on things not going well.

Perhaps a toning down of my rhetoric above would make things more understandable to the rank-and-file Democrats who read SKB's blog. Okay - Democrats as a whole obviously do not actively wish for the economy to suck, but the many of the ones in Congress are doing their best to keep Bush from fixing it. You can bet every dollar you have that if the economy sucks a year from now, the Democrats at the top of the party and in Congress and on the campaign trail will be glad they have an issue to run on.

And they may not wish for post-war Iraq to become a mess. But you can bet they (and by "they" I mean many of the Democrats in Congress - not SKB's mom or your neighbor down the street) will do their best to block Bush's policies that will fix it (i.e. pushing for the hapless State Department and the inept United Nations to ruin run Iraq). And they may not wish for a terror strike, but some of them sure are laying the rhetorical groundwork to blame Bush for it if it happens. Bob Graham and Howard Dean come to mind.

The thing is, generally, in an election, the party out of power needs things to be going badly in order to defeat the party in power. So while the top Democrats may not wish for a bad economy, they'll sure not help Bush fix it. And while the top Democrats may not wish ill for the Iraqi people, they know an Iraq that is showing real signs of positive progress next year is bad news for them on election day. After all, many of them were predicting calamity in Iraq. And while no Democrat wants another terror attack to occur, they are poised to blame Bush if it does, instead of acknowledging that Bush was right when he warned us almost two years ago the war on terror would be long and difficult. They will, in short, play politics with national security and work hard to convince people the economy is in bad shape, and stand ready to wave the bloody shirt if our enemies manage to complete another attack.

UPDATE #2: Rich Hailey posted a great comment over on SKB's blog regarding this topic:

OK folks, there are prominent Democrats on record as wishing the War on Iraq had gone worse. Just one example is the editor of Salon.com, Gary Kamiya, who opined that if a Bush success in Iraq led to 4 more years of Bush in the White House, then it was not immoral to hope for things to go badly in Iraq. He also stated directly that he was not alone in his beliefs. I posted on this the other day and to date not one prominent liberal has stepped forward to censure Kamiya, or disavow his remarks.
I'll give you the money quote:

"Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world."

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Kamiya is not a extremist, representing some fringe point of view, but a prominent mainstream Democrat. Bill's analysis is dead on. There are prominent Democrats who want things to go badly, just to get rid of Bush, and as long as they enjoy the support, whether tacit or explicit, of rank and file Democrats, then all Democrats will be judged by their statements. Don't like it? Then tell it to Kamiya and his ilk.

Digital Freedom UPDATE

From Instapundit:

FREEDOM TO TINKER has a table showing the status of state "super-DMCA" bills. I don't think they're so super, though.

May 15, 2003

Digital Freedom UPDATE: Unintended Consequences

The big newspapers in Tennessee continue to ignore the story, but NashvillePost.com, an online business news service that tends to break a lot of stories in advance of local daily The Tennessean has published an excellent story on the controversial cable industry-backed legislation making its way through the state legislature. NashvillePost.com is a subscription-only site so I can't give you a link to the story. But you can sign up for a free 30-day trial of NashvillePost.com by clicking here or going to their home page.

NashvillePost was kind enough to email me the text of the story by reporter Alexei Smirnov, provided an excellent exploration of the issue. Because NashvillePost is an online news publisher that relies on subscription revenue, I won't provide too much of the text, just some highlights, and encourage you to get a free 30-day trial subscription if you want to read the whole thing. Full disclosure: I provided reporter Alexei Smirnov some assistance in researching the story, though I am not quoted in it.

The story cites “mounting opposition from the Nashville high-tech community,” and reports on critics’ concerns that the bill’s broad language. The bill would make it a criminal offense to use such blatantly illicit devices as the “black box” to view cable programming without paying for it. But the broad language would also give cable companies the power to effectively declare any future computer gadgets illegal.

Rep. Rob Briley (D-Nashville), who is sponsoring the bill in the House, told NashvillePost.com that is intentional. The Telecom Theft Act of 1996 lists specific devices that are illegal if used in certain ways. That, says Briley, gives a potential cable thieves a roadmap to get around the law.

My comment: Unfortunately, the broad language of the new legislation would give the cable company unchecked power to use civil and criminal proceedings against customers who used the cable signal they have paid for in ways not expressly authorized by the cable company. And possession of an unauthorized device, under the legislation, creates the inference of intent to defraud the cable company. Hence, the cable industry - which is developing its own digital video recorder - could declare the TiVo digital video recorder “unauthorized,” and use the threat of civil litigation and criminal prosecution to encourage customers to rent the cable company’s DVR instead. Likewise, the cable company could declare “Wi-Fi” Internet devices unauthorized, barring customers from using the inexpensive devices to share their cable broadband Internet access with more than on PC in the home.

Also in the story: Vanderbilt University is opposing the legislation. VU lobbyist Betty Nixon says the bill has “problems.” Vanderbilt in recent years has become heavily involved in software and Internet-based research and Nixon says the university is concerned the legislation might unintentionally criminalize the work of software developers who build firewalls and encryption tools.

There’s more. Get yourself a free 30-day trial and read the whole thing.

For my previous post on this subject, click here and follow the links.

Full Circle

I'm a former newspaper reporter who now blogs. The blogosphere is often convulsed by discussions over whether blogs are journalism (right answer: some are) and how traditional news organizations should use blogs. Well, the Providence Journal in Rhode Island has some of its reporters writing blogs. One of them, Sheila Lennon, linked today to my blog - and added some comments that help flesh out even more the story I've been blogging about how the cable industry is pushing legislation that will give it the authority to ban TiVo.

Are blogs journalism? In this case, yes. In spades.

Digital Freedom Update: It's a Person-al Thing

Glenn Reynolds wonders if there's a connection between the cable companies that are pushing the privacy-destroying, freedom-curtailing legislation known in Tennessee as HB 457 and SB 213 and the newspapers across Tennessee that are ignoring the story. Well, there's certainly a connection between the cable companies and the sponsor of the legislation in the Tennessee state Senate.

Reader Jay Johnson, a 1999 University of Tennessee law school graduate, writes from tornado-ravaged Jackson, Tenn.:

Living here in Jackson, I heard no end to the public outcry when the Jackson Energy Authority wanted $60 million in bonds to install a fiberoptic to the home network in Jackson. Obviously, this would enable the city's utility company to provide high speed internet as well as cable TV service. Currently, the only way to get that here in Jackson (readily) is through Charter Communications. There has been litigation here by Charter and a local internet company, seeking to block this plan, and seemingly never ending controversy about the bond issue on incurring public debt for the system.

With the present legislation to suck away massive amounts of privacy, and force us to send messages to friends via homing pigeon and make our own crystal radio sets to pick up Amos and Andy, I remembered an interesting little fact and started doing some Googling. There were some columns in the Jackson Sun about this issue, and as I thought I recalled, Curtis Person III is the local head honcho with Charter Communications, and is on the Board of the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association. Of course, they were substantially opposed to JEA entering the cable and internet business.

It just so happens that his dear-old dad, Curtis Person, Jr., is the sponsor of SB 213, Tennessee's "Super DMCA." Must be nice to have fathers in high places.

I am personally doing everything I can do in this area through our local media to get the word out on this travesty for individual privacy rights, and I'm going to continue to do so. Keep spreading the word, and keep up the good work.

The first story says:

The private act that allows JEA to compete in the telecommunications market breezed through the General Assembly with only one dissenting vote. State Sen. Curtis Person Jr., R-Memphis, was the only state legislator to vote against JEA's charter change in 2001. Person is father of Curtis Person III, Charter Communications West Tennessee director, but the younger Person says the two never talked before the vote.

And so, we're finally starting to unravel how a piece of legislation drafted by the Motion Picture Association of America and pushed by the cable industry came to be sponsored in the Tennessee legislature virtually verbatim as SB 213 by Sen. Person. There's a family connection. In the state House, Rep. Rob Briley maintains he has never spoken to the MPAA about HB 457. We're still trying to find out why he's in bed with the cable industry on this.

For more on HB 457 and SB 213, click here, read, and follow the links.

UPDATE: Over at the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network (in my blogroll) they're debating whether Sen. Person's familial connection to the cable industry is fair game as they continue to work to defeat or at least defang HB 457 and SB 213. My comment on that is this: The TDFN should work to defeat the bill on its lack of merits even in its current amended form, and should not battle the legislation based on Sen. Person's personal connection to the industry whose water he is carrying. But journalists who cover the Tennessee legislature are missing a big story, and the facts cited above regarding Sen. Person's son's employment by a cable company that stands to gain incredible powers under SB 213 and HB 457 are fair game and should be reported. The public should be told of that connection as part of overall coverage of the issue, which I have done here at HobbsOnline, and journalists should dig to find out whether there are any unseen connections explaining why Sen. Person's counterpart, Rep. Rob Briley, might have sponsored legislation drafted by the Motion Picture Association of America. Activists should focus on the the legislation itself.

May 14, 2003

Digital Freedom Update

Here's the latest news on the cable industry-backed anti-consumer legislation known as HB 457 and SB 213, courtesy of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network:

The House Budget Subcommittee hearing on HB457 has been deferred until next Wednesday, May 21st. Quite a few members of our group showed up for the hearing, and soon after it began, [Rep. Rob] Briley requested that his two bills be rolled for one week, and that was granted. So, it looks like another long lunch next Wednesday for some very tired volunteers. Remember, all rules have been suspended, so this schedule may change quickly and dramatically. Please do all you can to stay informed, and to keep the rest of us informed!

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on SB213 has been deferred until May 20.

UPDATE: Well, The Tennessean appears to have a good excuse. They were busy covering the all-important NASCAR license plates legislation.

Blogging for Democracy

Jeff Jarvis on weblogs and democracy:

Weblogs are not just the hottest trend on the trend-addicted Internet, they are a powerful tool for free speech, a free press, and democracy. Because they are the cheapest, easiest publishing tools ever created - because anyone with a web browser can now publish to the entire connected world - weblogs bring the force of media to the hands of the people. Weblogs are revolutionary.

May 13, 2003

It Really Is Revolutionary

Donald Luskin takes a break from carving up the New York Times' resident liar (no, not Jayson Blair - Paul Krugman!) to reflect on blogging. Among his finer points:

Blogs tend to be written by people who read blogs, and blogs often refer to each other, link to each other, police each other, and so on, so errors or biases are quickly discovered and exposed - in the heyday of the Internet this used be called "collaborative filtering." Because blogging permits anyone to be his own author/reporter/pundit/publisher if he wishes, you can personally participate in the process of the formation of news and opinion in the blogosphere - it's not just passively acquiring information, it's being an insider to an information-processing community.

Also don't miss Luskin's speech on the weaponization of economics.

Those Crazy Mullahs

The BBC reports the Islamic tyrants running Iran have ordered Internet service providers to block about 15,000 websites, many of them political sites that make fun of religious and political figures. About two million Iranians have access to the Internet, and the web "has become an important outlet as an alternative method of communication in Iran, which maintains a close eye on the media," says the BBC. The Iranian regime is cracking down but it won't be long before it cracks completely and the pro-western, pro-democracy, pro-American majority in Iran lives in freedom. For the latest on Iran, see Iranian expat blogger Hossein Derakhshan's blog. And don't miss this Shift.com article from July 2002 explaining how Derakhshan enabled thousands of Iranians to become bloggers.

Most of these blogs host musings on the day-to-day lives of young Iranians. Filled with postings on music, movies, recreational drugs and girl/boyfriends, they map out a mental landscape that is heavily populated by references to Western culture. From Pink Floyd to pot smoking, it is clear that Iran's teenagers share a lot of ground with their counterparts in North America. To find these digital tableaux of youth culture frivolous, however, would be to miss the point. Self-expression is a rare privilege indeed in a country where even the elected government is controlled by a fiercely Muslim theocracy. For young women, it's often an impossibility. Yet through the anonymity that blogging can afford, those who once lacked voices are finally speaking up.

... According to Derakhshan, the religious right does not appear to understand the Pandora's Box of Information that the web is unleashing. The right's lack of awareness - or at least concern - about the blogging phenomenon cannot be taken for granted, however. Derakhshan, for example, will not be posting a link to this article on hoder.com, his Persian blog site. "Every day I worry that I'm going to hear from the Iranian government... The judiciary will ban any newspaper that crosses the line, but satellite TV and the internet are two things that they haven't been able to control. Yet. If one day, the hard-liners force the government to install a central filter on their uplink lines, nobody in Iran will be able to access the websites they ban. Imagine what would happen if they put a ban on Blogspot.com, where almost all Persian weblogs are hosted." For the time being, however, the number of voices contributing to the Persian blogging phenomenon continues only to grow.

UPDATE: Speaking of Iranian bloggers, Newsweek is reporting on the arrest of Sina Motallebi, an Iranian journalist and blogger who was held by the government for 22 days before being released.

He became the first blogger to be arrested. In Iran, where newspapers are routinely shut down for mysterious reasons and where journalists are imprisoned without explanation, blogs, or weblogs, have emerged as a last bastion of personal freedom - and the latest perceived menace for the Iranian government to grapple with.

So Motallebi has become a symbol - to the Iranian government as well as to his supporters - of the Internet-savvy Iranian youth growing in numbers, of their need for a space for self-expression, and of a repressive government crackdown on any structure that creates such a space. Fellow members of the blogosphere are concerned that Motallebi is only the first scapegoat in what might become a new government preoccupation. "This is not about Sina," says Pedram Moallemian, an Iranian blogger living in California. "The government has noticed this new area where free speech can flourish, and they want us to know that they're watching us. Sina's arrest is supposed to send a message."

Digital Freedom Update

Why is the cable industry pushing legislation in Tennessee and other states that will give the cable industry the power to control what kind of devices you hook to the cable outlet in your home? Because they want to be able to force you to rent their devices. Soon, if HB 457 and SB 213 become law in Tennessee, the cable industry will be able to declare the TiVo digital video recorder an "unauthorized" device and apply civil and criminal proceedings to any consumer who uses one. Of course, they'll probably drop the charges and end the lawsuits if you agree to rent their digital video recorder. For more on the controversy over HB 457 and SB 213, be sure to check in with the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network. For a national perspective on the legislation, called "super-DMCA," check out Copyfight.org.

UPDATE: The cable industry naturally would take issue with my characterization of the legislation, which their lobbyist in Tennessee is describing as merely an updating of the state's laws against the theft of cable TV service. But here is the dangerous section of the legislation in its current amended form:

In any criminal prosecution or civil action under this section, any of the following shall create an inference that the defendant intended to violate this section: (1) The presence of an unauthorized connection of any kind between the defendant's property and any network, system or facility owned or operated by a communication service provider.

The amended legislation offers this fig leaf of protection:

No person shall be in violation of this section for using a communications device for the purpose of connecting one (1) or more multipurpose devices at the person's residential or business premises, provided that the person does not do so knowingly and with the intent to defraud a communication service provider, and that such device does not cause electronic or physical harm to the communication service provider's network, system or facility.

The word "unauthorized" is the problem here. It does not appear in Tennessee's current law against the theft of telecommunications services - current state law does not give the cable industry the power to declare your TiVo "unauthorized" and force you, under threat of civil or criminal proceedings, to rent their TiVo-like service.

The new legislation should be amended to strip out the sections giving the cable industry the power to decide what devices you hook to the cable outlet in your home. But that would make it not much different than existing state law.

Oh.

Previous post on this issue: Click here.

May 12, 2003

AWOL Update

AWOL Update
I've received a fair amount of email on the "Bush AWOL?" story and while I'm not going to post everything, I thought I'd address the basic arguments of some of the letter writers who, despite the mounting evidence, believe Bush indeed did shirk his National Guard duties. They tend to conflate three issues into one. The basic charge against Bush is that he used family connections to jump ahead in line and get into the Guard, in order to avoid serving in Vietnam, and that toward the end of his six-year enlistment he stopped showing up for required drills. Start here and scroll up if you're new to all this.

There are three basic allegations the anti-Bushies make, and and even if any are true, they do not prove the others.

As to the first and second charges, some emailers have said I should have mentioned that GWB's father's dad, Prescott Bush, was a "powerful" U.S. senator from Connecticut. Some say that proves GWB got into the Guard based on family connections. Others imply it proves GWB's family was famous in 1972 in Alabama and, therefore, the colonel at the Alabama base would indeed have remembered seeing GWB there if he was ever there. As to the former, I'll just respond that if GWB used family connections to get into the Guard, he still joined a unit elements of which were involved in combat in Vietnam at the time he enlisted. (Some critics at this point note that GWB checked a box indicating he didn't desire to go to Vietnam, as if this made him immune to going if Uncle Sam had called up his unit. But that's silly - if Uncle Sam had sent the 111th Fighter-Interceptor squadron to Vietnam, Bush would have had to go. And you can't fault anyone for checking a box indicating they didn't want to go to combat.)

As to the latter, Prescott Bush's term as senator from Connecticut ended in 1962, six years before GWB enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard, and a full decade before he allegedly failed to make his required appearances on the base in Alabama. Now, I'm a political junkie. I follow the news. I breath politics like fish breathe water. And, guess what, I can't name both U.S. senators from Alabama, which is less 70 miles south of my house. The current Alabama senators, I mean. I follow issues not personalities, but I think one of them is Jeff Sessions, but I can't name both. And I sure can't name the state's two senators from a decade ago. So I Googled it. Howell T. Heflin was a U.S. Senator from Alabama from 1979-1997. Jeremiah Denton was a Senator from 1981-1987. Oh. I didn't know that - and Alabama is just 70 miles away, not 1,000 miles away as Connecticut is from Alabama.

Now, please explain to me why a National Guard colonel in Alabama in 1972 would have any idea who Prescott Bush was and that he had been a Senator from Connecticut, a decade before. Sorry, it just doesn't pass the reality test. It is just plain silly to argue either that GWB was allowed to shirk his Guard duties while in Alabama because of his famous family - or, contradictorily - that he was never on the base because the colonel can't remember him and would have remembered him because of his "famous family" that was famous in, well, Texas and Connecticut but sure as heck not in Alabama. If the family was famous in Alabama, the colonel would remember that GWB didn't show up - but that's not what the colonel says. He says he doesn't recall GWB at all. And if the family wasn't powerful and connected in Alabama, GWB wouldn't have been allowed to shirk his duties. The most logical explanation as that GWB put in his hours on the base, and no one in Alabama knew he was the son of a future president as well as a future president and no one took special note of him. Just another National Guard lieutenant, of which there are many in Alabama.

As to the third charge, that Bush shirked his duties, the first proof that is false is that he was honorably discharged having completed more than the minimum service required in his enlistment contract. (Why do the anti-Bushies focus so much on missing records they can't see, and ignore the honorable discharge they can see?) Meanwhile, it is worth noting, there is no credible allegation that Bush shirked his duties during the first four years of his enlistment. The record plainly shows he showed up, completed his training and was considered to be a good pilot. Now, if he was using family connections in order to shirk his duties, would he have had to show up, and be diligent, and really actually learn to fly the F-102? Wouldn't he have been able to get a desk job and show up only when he felt like it?

You don't get to be a good pilot by not showing up. Bush showed up. As for the last 18 months of his enlistment - he was discharged early with, remember, his service time requirement completed - Bush's attendance is difficult to prove because of missing records. As I've shown in previous posts over the last few days, missing records are commonplace in the military, but the absence of the records does not prove Bush himself was absent. The history we have records of show Bush showed up when he was supposed to. In looking for the truth, if you don't have hard evidence you look for trends. Bush's personal history of good attendance and performance in the first four years argues in favor of the proposition that he fulfilled his duties during the latter part of his enlistment.

His honorable discharge is the evidentiary coup de grace.

Digital Freedom Update

The Tennessee Digital Freedom Network has the latest schedule of legislative committee hearings on HB 457 and SB 213, the legislation pushed by the Motion Picture Association of America and the cable teevee industry that will, if not stopped, severely curtail your freedom to use digital media - hardware and content - in the way you see fit. It's a developing story that one of Nashville's two daily newspapers has chosen to ignore, even though it involves your privacy rights and your "fair use" rights under federal copyright law, and your First Amendment rights. Opposition to the legislature ranges from conservatives and libertarians to the Tennessee chapter of the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union.

UPDATE: The Nashville City Paper, which is covering the story, is getting letters to the editor about it. (Scroll down to the second letter.)

UPDATE #2: The author of the BusinessLawyer blog has a fine summation of the issue at stake: "The real issue is not whether you are for copyright laws, patents and intellectual property protection in general, it's how far do you want to go to protect what is very difficult to protect without invading people's homes to see if they are re-editing their DVD of The Matrix." (If the link doesn't work, just go here and look for the earliest entry on Monday, May 12. Blogger, you know, sucks.)

Jailed Iranian Blogger Freed

Iranian journalist and blogger Sina Motallebi has been set free by the crazed Islamic mullahs who are doing their shabby best to keep a nation oppressed.

Liberal Clergy?

Liberal Clergy?
Donald Sensing is looking at the growing divide between clergy and laity in America, and points to some good stuff from Armed Liberal as well.

The clergy controlling the agendas in the churches concerned see the lay people as deeply "acculturated" by traditional American secular values, namely, love of country and other accoutrements of patriotism. That is, the laity are seen as rooted in the "kingdoms of the world" rather than rooted in the Kingdom of God (like the clergy are convinced they are). Laity are seen as enmeshed in rampant consumerism, and self-serving, unexamined ends, for which their religion is more socially, economically and culturally affirming rather than transformative and challenging.

The lay people, on the other hand, see the clergy as overtly political, intolerably authoritarian and frankly anti-American even at the expense of supporting morally and materially a tyrant like Saddam Hussein. To the lay people, the clergy are seen as having lost their religious center, the Good News of Jesus Christ as the unique Son of God and redeemer of all humankind, and exchanged it for a political agenda that uses Christ and Bible as a prop, but which has an insipid religious content and is often nearly indistinguishable from the latest press release of the Democratic party.

May 09, 2003

A Good Summation

Smythe's World provides a decent summation of the arguments for and against the proposition that George W. Bush was "AWOL" or otherwise improperly absent from his National Guard duties for much of 1972.

(Smythe does get some facts wrong - he says Bush the Elder "had not been elected to Congress or served in government yet" when GWB enlisted in 1968, but as I've stated numerous times, Bush the Elder was running for a second term in Congress in 1968. And his casual dismissal of the point I've made about missing military records shows he missed the point: the anti-Bushies claim the lack of evidence proves GWB was AWOL, when all it really proves is the records are missing - something that is not at all unusual. In fact, it happens all-to-frequently in Uncle Sam's military, as numerous letter-writers have attested. Still, overall, a nice summation of the basic points of the argument. Not that I'm done arguing, necessarily...

More Letters

My coverage of the "Bush AWOL?" story continues to generate emails...

L. Chimene of Austin, Texas, writes:

Let me relate a bit of my own experience to bolster your analysis. After I'd completed two years in the Army as a draftee at the time of Korea I tried, a few years later, to get a copy of my record. There was an item in them that would have got me admitted to a group I wanted to join. Nope. Couldn't get it. They sent a letter saying all of my records and those of a lot of others no longer existed. There had been this fire... Clearly, it's not only "clerks screwing up the paperwork" that can cause records to go missing. I'm pretty sure the Army has always had lots of ways to engender snafus.

Also, when I was drafted I was assigned to a National Guard division which had just been federalized, to help fill it out. The Guardsmen learned the hard way, if they hadn't known before, that Guard service is not exactly a sure ticket to avoid action. They weren't the only Guard division that got federalized at that time, either.

On the flip side of reality, Dave Anthony of Woodstock, Ga., suggests the notion that the military lost some of Bush's military service records is silly. But it is Dave's argument that is silly:

They can find a letter from a kid like Clinton NOT going to the service but they just commonly lose records of the guys that went. If Bush was so great and attended every meeting wouldn't it be easy to come up with his commanding officer to verify that he went to every meeting? Sounds like I have a bridge in Iraq to sell you.

By the way, you can read the text of Clinton's letter here. (Scroll down a bit to find it.) The site explains in detail how Clinton dodged the draft. Compare it to President Bush, who volunteered for a unit at a time it had pilots in combat, who successfully trained to fly fighter jets, who exceeded his minimum service requirements, and who was granted an honorable discharge. On second thought, there is no comparison, is there?

The Power of the Blogosphere

Every so often, the blogosphere amazes me. The past two days, it did it again, and re-confirmed my belief that the blogosphere is both the most powerful journalistic media tool ever devised, and the foundation of a new kind of what I in the past have called collaborative peer-reviewed journalism.

On Wednesday morning, I was checking out AndrewSullivan.com and noticed his post regarding a Paul Krugman column in the New York Times that revived the "Bush was AWOL from the National Guard" accusation in light of Bush's carrier landing/speech. I thought it was worth repeating, so I created my own post linking to Sullivan's. But I wasn't done. I'm a journalist. I had three questions Sullivan hadn't answered - questions, in fact, that it seems no one had yet answered in the coverage of Bush's National Guard service:

1. Was the Texas Air National Guard really a good place to avoid combat?
2. Was the Bush family name really so big back in 1968-73 that it would have helped Bush get a cushy and safe spot in the Guard? And, related to that, did the Bush family name by 1972 make it likely the Alabama colonel would've remembered Bush being on his base?
3. Is the lack of a paper trail for some parts of Bush's claimed service record all that extraordinary in the military?

So much for the notion that Bush joined a unit chosen to avoid the chance for combat.

Next came the issue of Bush's family connections, often portrayed as "famous and powerful" by the anti-Bushies. You know the meme: Bush got his Guard spot thanks to the "famous and powerful" Bush family name.

But back in '68, Bush the Elder wasn't so big and famous. In May, when GWB enlisted in the TANG, his father was a first-term, back-bench, minority-party congressman running for re-election. Bush the Elder hadn't yet been United Nations Ambassador or chairman of the Republican National Committee or CIA Director or vice president or president. Two years later, Bush the Elder lost a Senate race. In 1972, when GWB was allegedly getting away with being AWOL from that base in Alabama, his father was ambassador to the UN.

So much for the "family connections" angle to the AWOL story - and if GWB used daddy's fame in Texas to get accepted into the Guard, he used family connections to join a unit that was serving in Vietnam, not one that was a guaranteed way to avoid combat.

And so much for the claim that the Alabama colonel's failure to recall, 31 years later, if Bush was ever on the base, being the "proof" the anti-Bushies claim it is. With only four years in Congress and a failed Senate campaign in Texas, Bush the Elder's fame probably hadn't spread to Alabama by '72. Bush the Elder was ambassador to the UN by that year, but most people probably can't name the UN ambassador. There's little reason to believe the colonel would have singled out Bush 31 years ago for special memory three decades later. His lack of memory proves, merely, that he can't remember.

My third question centered on the paperwork. There appear to be missing or incomplete records in GWB's military service records, as pieced together by the Boston Globe and the New York Times. The anti-Bushies spin the lack of records of Bush being on the base in Alabama in late '72 as proof he wasn't there. But, as blogger Jane Galt commented on her blog: "As they say in statistics class, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Indeed.

So I asked, on my blog, almost casually: The anti-Bushies spin the lack of paperwork as proof positive that Bush was "AWOL." But a more benign explanation is easy to see: the paper clerks screwed up the paperwork. That's not unheard of in the military, is it? Within minutes, I was receiving emails from current and former members of the military stressing that, in fact, such paperwork snafus involving fitness reports, service evaluations and such, were common.

So much for the missing paper work being the smoking gun the anti-Bushies claim it is.

The story has since taken on a life of its own - Technorati.com lists dozens of sites linking to my "Bush AWOL?" posts, with many adding further evidence to support the view that Bush wasn't ever AWOL (and some that slam me) and I have received numerous emails from military folks thanking me for standing up for the Guard. One, reprinted below, thanks me for refuting the myth that Guard service was a way to avoid Vietnam. And fellow Tennessee blogger Rich Hailey, an occasional contributor to my blog, explained on his site why the anti-Bushies' blather about Bush's failure to get a flight physical in 1973 is much ado about nothing.

In the end, I answered all of my questions - and the blogosphere helped fill in the details. But I still had one more question. Why did my original post become the talk of the blogosphere yesterday? Instapundit has linked to me before, and it's never resulted in the avalanche of other links and emails. And half my original post was stuff Andrew Sullivan had posted the day before. Is it because I took a journalistic, rather than a partisan, tone, in examining the facts - and because my focus was not on the same "evidence" and the same "spin" that the anti-Bushies and pro-Bushies have bandied back and forth on and off for years, but on answering those three new questions? I think so.

And the Internet and the blogosphere helped me do it.

Worshipping Peace More than God

Worshipping Peace More than God
The always high-caliber blog of Rev. Artillery, a/k/a Donald Sensing, is blasting away at a fellow United Methodist pastor who calls it a "pastoral failure" that one of his flock joined the military.

Pretty tough talk from someone who leads a life as sheltered as an American United methodist pastor, which is typically about the least risky occupation I can think of. I'd be interested to know whether the Rev. Magruder has actually ever truly risked his own life or suffered enduring hardship on behalf of any kind of great cause, whether religious or not. If not, what is his moral authority to tell others not to do so? His ordination orders? Oh, please.

He says the decision of the young woman to join the Army was one of his first pastoral failures. I don't know how long he has been a pastor. But consider: Christ never condemned military service but he did harshly denounce divorce. Have any of Magruder's parishioners ever divorced? If so, was he as upset about their unfaithfulness to Christ as he is about the young woman? Just a thought . . . .

Personally, I would consider my pastoring a failure if my young people didn't consider joining the military - not because I think that religious virtue demands military service (it doesn't, of course) but because I think that we must inculcate in our children the desire to risk themselves on behalf of great causes. They need to understand that consumerism and money-making does not define the virtuous life. So do something difficult and risky before you pursue the great American dream. The Peace Corps would be fine, for example. But I know very few pastors who have any greater vision for their church's high school seniors than for them to go to college and join the Wesley House United Methodist fellowship.

We offer our youth no worthy battle to fight, no cause to sacrifice for. Then we denounce them for finding such things on their own. And we wonder why when they grow into young adults they stay at home on Sunday mornings.

More Comments on "Bush AWOL?"

I touched a chord with my query yesterday about whether paperwork screwups like the ones that appear to form the basis of the otherwise baseless charge that President Bush was, back in '72, "AWOL" from his National Guard unit, are common. Yes, says B. Preston, at JunkyardBlog, relating a personal experience.

Meanwhile, thanks to a lot of bloggers out there who linked to my posts about the Bush-AWOL allegations. Time to spread the love around. Here is a list of some of them for you to visit.

BaseballCrank
The Rattler
Diffuse Shadows
The Inscrutable American
Removing All Doubt
Lex Communis
Blogospherics
Ipse Dixit
The SmarterCop
Inn of the Last Home
BarCodeKing
Smythe's World
Capitalist Lion

Physical Evidence

Rich Hailey explains why the anti-Bushies' blather about Bush's failure to get a flight physical in 1973 is much ado about nothing. And Bill Herbert examines the latest attack on Bush - that the carrier landing cost a lot of money and delayed the return of the ship - and explodes the charge efficiently, effectively and enthusiastically.

May 08, 2003

Hilarious

Here's a brief history of the Internet that is as factually accurate as claims Bush was AWOL - but much funnier. Hysterically funny in parts, actually. [Hat tip: InstaPundit]

Bush AWOL?

Here are two emails I received from readers related to my posts about the spurious charge that President Bush was "AWOL" from his duties with the Texas Air National Guard back in '72...

Mr. Hobbs,

Thanks for the blog on Bush's ANG duty, especially the part that mentioned that some of the 147th folks had been recalled to active duty and were serving in Viet Nam.

One of the myths of guard duty - at least the way that guard duty is implied to be - is that it was a way of avoiding the draft. I was on active duty in Viet Nam in 67-68, flying F-100s at Tuy Hoa Air Base. Two recalled ANG units were there as well: one from Niagara Falls and one from Albuquerque. The Denver ANG unit was just north of us at Phu Kat. Those units served honorably, without any crybaby stuff about their jobs back home and they lost some pilots during the deployment.

Many of my fellow pilots left active duty when their duty commitments were up and joined guard units. I remained on active duty. Beginning in the mid-70s, Tactical Air Command shifted gears to emphasize realistic training. It was tough, but rewarding. It required a lot of work, and the guys in the guard units who were flying fighters had to maintain the same standards as the active duty guys - plus hold down their civilian jobs.

I guess what I'm saying is that these guys deserve a lot of credit. Any BS about avoiding combat is a disservice to these people. I thank you for helping to keep the record straight.

Regards,
Pat Birmingham
Hilton Head Island

Bill:
In your updated post on the Bush "AWOL" story, you ask:

"The anti-Bushies spin the lack of paperwork as proof positive that Bush was "AWOL." But a more benign explanation is easy to see: the paper clerks screwed up the paperwork. That's not unheard of in the military, is it?"

As a former Surface Warfare Officer in the Navy, I can tell you from personal experience that no, it is not unheard of. In fact it's pretty friggin' common. Even
today.

In the Navy, the fleet gets messages from the department's bureau of personnel (BUPERS) at the beginning of every advancement cycle, or before a selection board meets, in the case of officers and CPO's. These messages tell you who has gaps in their evaluation or fitness report coverage, and what those dates are. Then, the division officers scramble to find out who screwed up (usually the personnel/admin office on the ship) and then make sure copies of the missing EVALS are sent to the bureau ASAP.

As a division officer and later as a department head on a smaller ship, I never once got one of those messages that didn't have at least one of my Sailors listed as having a missing EVAL. It even happened to me once, and I had to track down a former commanding officer to get a copy of my missing fitness report - from over four years prior - to the O-4 selection board.

This is the Navy today. I can only imagine just how common this was in the TANG of the early 1970's.

Cheers,
Bill Herbert

Sparkey Weighs In

Sparkey over at Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing applauds Bush's military service record. And you really ought to read down through the comments and learn more about how bad paperwork problems can be in the Guard and Reserves. Sparkey commentson Bush's records in light of that charge that Bush managed to get assigned at the end of his Guard stint to a unit where he had no responsibilities, and perhaps never showed up, noting that by the time of that assignment, Bush had already completed the service requirements of his enlistment. The unit, says Sparkey, is

an administrative holding tank for Guardsmen/Reservists that have "Non-Obligatory" (drill optional) status. Because he had so many days of active duty, he had exceeded the requirements set forth in his enlistment contract.

... As to the poor records well, all I can say is welcome to the world of the United States Guard & Reserves. Everyone must realize that being at the bottom of the DoD food chain, the Guard/Reserves have had, and still have massive paperwork and record keeping problems. It was bad when I was in the Navy Reserves in the late 80's. And everyone who'd been there agreed that things had greatly improved from the 70's!

The Navy Reserve officers I drilled with spent 75% of their drill time on paperwork - and never caught up. What would happen is this, if someone didn't squawk for something, it got put on the back burner until forgotten. So gaps and other problems with Bush's record don't surprise me in the least. Look at it from the unit's perspective, being non-Obligatory, why go to the effort to keep accurate records when he (Bush) wasn't worried about the year counting for retirement? If Bush wasn't going to push, the unit certainly wouldn't. As to the colonel not remembering Bush, well why would he? With Lt. Bush being Non-Obligatory, he wasn't someone he (the Col.) really needed to keep track of. Bush would have simply dropped off the colonel's radar screen.

Digital Freedom UPDATE

The Tennessee Digital Freedom Network has posted an update on HB 457, the bill pushed by the Motion Picture Association of America and the cable industry that seeks to exert extreme control over how you use digital media and digital media devices:

Flash News - House Judiciary Committee Approves HB0457!
HB0457 has been "recommended for passage if amended" and referred to the House Finance, Ways & Means Committee.

Luke Kanies, one of several technology activists at the hearing, told the story:

Rep. Frank Buck from District 40 "kicked the crap out of [cable lobbyist Geoffrey] Beauchamp, then the Chairman let the Vandy person and no one else speak." Luke described it as "incredibly offensive," as Vanderbilt's spokesperson "got about two minutes to Beauchamp's 15 or so," and Committee Chairman Joe Fowlkes allowed no other citizens to speak on the issue.

This cannot be allowed to stand, folks. We have to hit this issue and hit it hard. We can listen to promises of receptiveness all we want in the hallways and offices of Legislative Plaza, but it's what happens in the hearings that counts. Call, write, email, grouse, cajole, educate, inform, visit and complain. Let your legislators, your business associates, your professional organizations know what's going on here and let's get this bill defanged or killed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on SB213 has been deferred until May 20. There's still time to get a postal letter, email message or phone call to your senator, especially if they're on the Judiciary Committee. Visit the Digital Freedom Forum to find out what else is being done and how you can help!

Your rights to use technology for your own purposes are under attack by the entertainment industry. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 says that you can't tape a CD if the CD manufacturer tries to stop you. The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Protection Act attempted to force manufacturers to cripple computers and stereos to prevent us from copying songs and movies. Meanwhile, Representative Berman tried to empower Hollywood vigilantes to crack into your computer if they suspect you of trading MP3s. Since these didn't become law, the MPAA formed the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group to coerce electronics companies to cripple their products anyway. EFF and FSF were able to derail that effort, but now state legislatures around the USA are passing so-called "super-DMCA" technology control measures.

Bush AWOL? The "Evidence" Proves

I've looked at the issue of President Bush allegedly being "AWOL" from his Texas Air National Guard duties in 1972 and applied a well-honed journalist's skepticism to the evidence pro and con. Is there hard proof Bush didn't show up when he was supposed to? The short answer is, no. The evidence, such as it is, is a lack of paperwork on certain matters. The anti-Bushies spin the lack of paperwork as proof positive that Bush was "AWOL." But a more benign explanation is easy to see: the paper clerks screwed up the paperwork. That's not unheard of in the military, is it?

In the end, the evidence against Bush is circumstantial, while the evidence in his favor is as follows:

1. He successfully completed flight training - indicating he was there sufficient amount of time during that phase.
2. He is remembered as a good pilot by those who flew with him.
3. He received an honorable discharge, indicating he fulfilled his service requirement.
4. The Guard had a high opinion of him in late 2000/early 2001, before the war earned him high respect among the military (as evidenced by an article in National Guard magazine in January 2001, referenced and linked to in my previous post on this matter.)

Those all indicate the "Bush was AWOL" story has little to no credibility with those in the best position to know.

More problematic is the recollection of one colonel who says he doesn't remember Bush ever being on the base in Alabama. But that's one man, looking back 31 years, and there's little reason he should have singled out Bush back then for special notice in his memory file. Bush back then was just a kid whose dad was sort of famous in Texas - not famous in Alabama. Bush's father had not yet been president, vice president or CIA director. In fact, in 1970, the senior Bush, a two-term congressman from Texas, lost a Senate race. He wasn't even that big in Texas!

A year later, the senior Bush was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Can you name our current UN ambassador? Perhaps you can, but you're part of a group of people interested in national politics or you wouldn't be following this story across the blogosphere. I doubt the typical National Guard colonel knows the name of the ambassador to the UN.

Those who claim the younger Bush got a cushy Guard appointment safely removed from the danger of Vietnam combat on account of his famous dad are just looking at the past through the filter of post-event history. George W. Bush applied to the Guard when his daddy was a one-term, back-bench, minority-party congressman - not years later when the senior Bush had been chairman of the Republican National Committee, CIA director, vice president and so on.

Would a colonel in Alabama know who George W. Bush's father was way back in 1972? It seems unlikely. So his inability to recall, 31 years later, that Bush was on base, is not all that surprising. I doubt that colonel today could name most of the people who were on that base in 1972. The anti-Bushies spin his lack of memory as proof Bush wasn't on the base, when all it merely proves is the colonel can't remember Bush being on the base.

Much of the "evidence" the anti-Bushies cite is like that. It doesn't prove what they claim, but it can be spun that way, so they spin. It still comes down to this: George W. Bush was a Texas Air National Guard pilot who flew sophisticated aircraft for a unit that very well could have gone to Vietnam (and indeed parts of it were deployed to Vietnam when Bush enlisted) and he was honorably discharged having fulfilled his service requirements.

The Internet Wants to be Free

The New York Times has an interesting report today on how more and more retail establishments are using free wireless Internet access to attract customers.

"It remains to be seen how many users will be willing to pay the $30 a month being charged for Wi-Fi access at places like Starbucks, given the monthly communications fees many people already shoulder. In a growing number of places, an alternative is available - at no charge.

That's why the cable industry is pushing legislation written by the Motion Picture Association of America to give them the ultimate power – backed by civil liability and criminal penalties – to decide what devices you can hook to your cable outlet. The cable industry wants to make it illegal, and costly, for you to use a Wi-Fi device to use the cable broadband internet access signal you have already paid for on more than one PC in your home. There is no increased cost to the cable company if you use Wi-Fi to hook two or three computers to the Internet.

Cable Internet service is an "always on" service, so hooking two PCs to your cable modem via a Wi-Fi box affect the amount of usage. As for bandwidth, the typical home user's level of surfing and emailing are small and the increase that would come with having two PCs on the connection would be marginal. If I had two PCs hooked to my cable outlet instead of one, so my wife could send email from a PC on her desk in the kitchen while I used Google on my PC in my study, it wouldn't mean Comcast's network was carrying more email. It merely means my wife wouldn't have to wait until I was done in order to send her emails.

So why is the cable industry pushing legislation - like SB 213 and HB 457 in Tennessee - that would make it a crime to connect a Wi-Fi box to your cable outlet without their express authorization? Because they want you to pay them money for the authorization. They want you to pay them money for the right to more conveniently access and use service and capacity you have already paid them for. Period. That is why HB 457 and SB 213, currently pending in the Tennessee legislature, must be stopped. For more, go here and follow the links.

May 07, 2003

Digital Freedom UPDATE

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a bad law that's going global.

The Times They Are a-CHANging

Three years ago, my darling daughter's favorite teevee shows were Teletubbies, Barney and Scooby Doo. Two years ago: Scooby, Courage the Cowardly Dog (no relation), and Clifford the Big Red Dog (no relation, no relation). Clifford came on the earliest, on PBS, and some nights there'd be a Scooby mystery on Cartoon Network and then an episode or two of the truly deranged Courage the Cowardly Dog. There's a Three Dog Night joke in there somewhere.

Well, Bouncy Hair announced the other day while striking a young Ralph Macchio Karate Kid pose - one foot raised, arms oustretched like vulturous wings - that her favorite show is "Jackie Chain."

Jackie Chan.

"He kicks the bad guys in the bottom."

She's not quite 5 1/2. That's the problem with having a playroom that's somewhat removed from the rest of the house. Your five-year-old princess falls in love with Jackie Chan behind your back. While you're downstairs enjoying the peace and quiet.

Lileks could get a whole column out of this. That's the best I could do.

Digital Freedom UPDATE

I noted yesterday that I attended a meeting hosted by state Rep. Rob Briley, sponsor of the MPAA-drafted legislation designed to severely hobble your rights to use digital media and the Internet in the way you see fit. So did several folks with technical expertise that far surpasses mine. Tony Campbell of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network, which is opposing HB 457 and its companion SB 213, posted the following analysis of the legislation, which has been "amended" in a way that doesn't solve the legislation's basic problem. Writes Campbell:

Okay, let's forget about former versions of the bill, because this one requires an intent to violate this law, so it's not a threat to us honest technology users anymore, right? Ummmm... may I direct your attention to subsection (f), paragraphs (1) and (2) appurtaining?

(f) In any criminal prosecution or civil action under this section, any of the following shall create an inference that the defendant intended to violate this section:

(1) The presence of an unauthorized connection of any kind between the defendant's property and any network, system or facility owned or operated by a communication service provider; or
(2) The presence on the defendant's property, or in the defendant's possession or control, of any communication device which is connected in such a manner as would permit the unauthorized receipt, interception, acquisition, decryption, transmission or re-transmission of a communication service...

In other words, their "compromise amendment," in one fell swoop, promises violations are punishable only if they are intentional acts, and defines all violators with a communications device in their possession as having acted intentionally. The "intent" language looks like a concession, but in point of fact, it appears that it would only tie their hands if they were suing an aborigine for composing a tribal dance that incorporated the DeCSS algorithm. At least, that's how I see it.

Internet service providers could require customers to use only one brand of computer, for example. AOL could ban subscribers from using competing instant-messaging software. Cable companies could limit subscribers to only certain brands of VCRs. Customers who do not comply could risk a lawsuit or even criminal sanctions. The laws, he says, are unnecessary. Existing legislation protects communications providers from theft. "It's more an end run by copyright owners around some of the rights individuals would have with media that is delivered to their house," says Bucholz.

Intent – in legal terms, mens rea - has been a central part of Anglo-Saxon law for a few centuries now in determining culpability for a crime. Mens rea can be translated as 'guilty mind,' and convicting someone of nearly any criminal offense requires the prosecution demonstrate mens rea. What HB 457/SB 213 does is to weaken the criteria for proving intent to the point that, if it becomes law, in Tennessee the mere possession of a device that could be used to circumvent the cable industry's terms-of-service agreements, policies, etc., will be defined as proof of the crime of "intent to defraud" the cable company (or other telecommunications services provider). If the cable company does not give you express authorization to hook up a TiVo or a VCR to your cable outlet, or a or Wi-Fi device to your cable modem, the mere possession of a TiVo, VCR or Wi-Fi device will be, under this law, proof of the intent to defraud the cable company.

HB 457/SB 213 blurs a line that should not be blurred. The legislation should be junked. Entirely.

For more, go here and follow the links, and also be sure to visit the website of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network.

Guarding the Truth

Blogger South Knox Bubba is fond of belittling President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, even repeating the charge that Bush was often "AWOL" during his stint in the Guard. It's a favorite accusation of the anti-Bushies, one given new life a few years ago by this story in the Boston Globe, which alleges a one-year gap in Bush's service record.

But later reporting proved Bush wasn't AWOL....

National Guard magazine said it best in its Jan. 2001 edition:

Bush also was accused of skirting the draft by joining the Texas Air Guard in 1968. He became an F-102 fighter pilot before being discharged as a first lieutenant in 1973. [Former National Guard Bureau historian retired Col. Michael] Doubler says it is unfair to criticize those who joined the Guard during the Vietnam War. "The government allowed it and in many ways encouraged it," he said "There were a lot of things the government did to authorize people to serve in places other than the front lines."

Bush's drill performance also stirred controversy during the campaign. Some reports charged that he was absent for a year. However, probably the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by Georgemag.com, the online version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr.

Guardsmen say Bush's service record is not unusual. "In any six-year time frame you probably can find some problems," says retired Rep. G.V. 'Sonny' Montgomery, D-Miss., founder of the House Guard and Reserve Caucus. "Just learning to fly the F-102 and not getting hurt and not hurting anybody is an accomplishment." Montgomery called Bush's election, "nothing but a plus for the Guard."

Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story.

Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later.

Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.

Even the Boston Globe's story admits Bush served more than the minimum time, and was a fine pilot:

Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.''

Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam, logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early release from service.

Incidentally, Bush flew with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, which was attached to the 147th Fighter Wing, based in Houston, Texas. While Bush's unit never got called to Vietnam, the 147th was. From 1968 through 1970, pilots from the 147th participated in operation "Palace Alert" and served in Southeast Asia during the height of the Vietnam War. The 147th came off runway alert on Jan. 1, 1970 to start a new mission of training all F-102 pilots in the United States for the Air National Guard.

Bush enlisted as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, on May 28, 1968 - at a time when the 147th was actively participating in combat in Vietnam. However, one can not train overnight to be a pilot. Bush completed basic flight training and then, from December 1969 through June 27, 1970, he was training full-time at Ellington to be an F-102 pilot.

Bush volunteered to serve in a unit at the very moment it was seeing combat in Vietnam, and only a restructuring of the unit's mission before he completed his flight training made it unlikely he would fly in combat. And he was never AWOL - he completed his required service and even served beyond the minimum.

SKB owes the president an apology.

A big Welcome! to those who came here from Instapundit, One Hand Clapping, Sgt. Stryker, the Daily Pundit and sundry other points of the blogosphere. After you read the post below, please also scroll up or go here to read a follow-up. And please don't miss these just-posted letters from two readers.

May 06, 2003

Digital Freedom UPDATE

NPR has covered the controversy over "super-DMCA" legislation that the Motion Picture Association of America and the cable industry is ramming through state legislatures coast to coast, including here in Tennessee. The brief story - the audio is available by clicking a link at the top of the NPR web page I linked to - gives a good explanation of how this horrible legislation is managing to move through the legislative process. Basically it is because legislators don't know what they are doing, and are being led around by the MPAA. That's true here in Tennessee, where Rep. Rob Briley is pushing legislation he doesn't fully understand. While Briley has been open to changes in the law based on suggestions from opponents of the legislation, I sat through a meeting Briley hosted today down at the legislature and it was fairly obvious Briley leans toward accepting at face value the pronouncements of the cable industry lobbyist. Incidentally, Briley says he has never spoken with the MPAA, although his legislation was largely a verbatim copy of the same MPAA legislation introduced in several states. Perhaps he got it from the cable industry lobbyist.

For more on the controversy, go here and follow the links. Also be sure to check Copyfight regularly for updates.

May 05, 2003

Digital Freedom Update

Here's the latest from Nashville City Paper, which continues to do a far better job than its local competitor in covering the issue of whether the state legislature will passed legislation on behalf of a single special interest - the Motion Picture Association of America - that will take away many of your basic digital content usage rights. "You hear things about getting government off your back … this is getting government not only on your back but into your life and into your space and into your own computer. I think this is dreadful," says Dr. Michael Harrington, a professor of intellectual property law and also a copyright consultant. Also, continue to follow this issue via the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network, and for background click here and then follow the links.

May 02, 2003

Digital Freedom Update

Here's a good piece from eWeek explaining why the DMCA-like legislation being rammed through the Tennessee legislature is not a good thing. Excerpts:

One of the common aspects of these laws is that they make illegal any device or program that can "conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider or from any lawful authority the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication." ... This makes a whole set of common IT programs and hardware illegal, from firewalls to VPNs to privacy applications. So if you live in one of these states [that has already passed the legislation], you are now breaking the law if you run a firewall. And if you're an IT admin that has all of your internal systems running on NAT, you could face as much as five years in prison and up to a quarter-million-dollar fine.

... If you live in one of these states, or in a state that is considering one of these Super DMCA laws, you should contact your representatives immediately. And you might want to remind them that if they have any kind of normal IT setup, they are probably also breaking these laws.

UPDATE: Z wrote to point out that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a copy of the proposed amendment to the Tennessee legislation. I haven't read it and don't have a comment on it yet. But here's the link to the amendment in a PDF file.

The invaluable Copyfight.org continues to cover the Tennessee DMCA fight.

Digital Freedom Update: Legislator Responds

A reader of this blog has forwarded the text of a letter he received by email from state Rep. Rob Briley, a key sponsor of legislation pending in the Tennessee General Assembly that would abridge many of your digital freedoms. He received the email from Briley after writing Briley to urge him to pull HB 457. Here is what Briley wrote:

There has been much misinformation spread about this bill, my intent in sponsoring it (contrary to popular belief, I have never been contacted by anyone from the Motion Picture Association of America regarding this legislation, ever), what it accomplishes, and what it prohibits.

I introduced this legislation because of a real problem regarding theft of voice, video, and data communications. The value of that theft last year is estimated to be between $100-130 million. I know that none of the interested parties, including yourself, would condone that behavior as that cost is passed on to legitimate purchasers of these communications services. Once the bill was introduced, parties from all sides began meeting to work out an amendment to clarify that to violate the provisions of this proposed law, one must have the intent to defraud or steal something that would otherwise have to be purchased. These parties have included consumer electronic manufacturers, computer software designers, computer network professionals, and librarians. It does not at all relate to copyrighted material, as those issues are pre-empted by federal law.

The amendment also makes it abundantly clear that legislation would not make illegal legitimate computer designs or applications relating to networks and firewalls, nor the encrypting of data associated with those applications. I am continuing to work on the amendment to address any specific concerns. However, the vast majority of those who have contacted me have not seen and/or read the amendment to the bill. To help people understand what the legislation will look like as amended, I have scheduled a meeting in my office, 17 Legislative Plaza, on Tuesday, May, 6, at 10:00am. Please feel free to attend this meeting. I look forward to working with you to develop a piece of legislation that accomplishes my intent without compromising your legitimate activities.

Briley's claim that he has not dealt with the MPAA on this is simply not credible. His initial legislation is, in many sections, verbatim the MPAA draft legislation. Another question: why did Briley introduce such flawed legislation and begin to move it through the legislative process before amending it to fix many of the problems he admits plagued the initial bill?

And, third, Briley says the bill has been amended. But a check of the the status of HB 457, and its companion in the state senate, SB 213, finds that, as of today, no amendments have been filed for either bill.

Also today, Nashville City Paper has a better-than-average story about the legislation and the controversy surrounding it.

UPDATE: A reader of the City Paper story, Stephen Critchfield, posted a very perceptive comment on the paper's website: "...this law will make owning a VCR illegal as soon as the FCC mandates a copyright bit be placed in the HDTV video stream. The cable company rep says this law is not about copyright violations, and I'll agree with him. It is however about controlling what can be connected to the network that is capable of excersising our "Fair Use" rights. As soon as the copyright bit is part of the HDTV standard, anything that ignores it will become illegal in Tennessee because of this bill."

Because we haven't yet seen the alleged amendments Rep. Briley says have been made to the bill, we don't know if this flaw has been addressed.

For more on this issue, go here, and follow the links.

May 01, 2003

Jailed Blogger Update

Here's an update on the status of jailed Iranian bloger Sina Motallebi, courtesy of Jeff Jarvis.

Digital Freedom Update

I'm a bit late with this, but the Knoxville News Sentinel carried a perceptive column about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The column was written by Diana Holden, a graduate student in the University of Tennessee's School of Information Sciences. It doesn't mention efforts to enact a state version of the DMCA, which I've written about extensively below. (Start here, follow links.)

Also, here's a story from Information Week about the negative impact of state-level DMCA legislation. An excerpt:

In the days following the July 2001 Code Red worm outbreak, which infected 359,000 systems in 14 hours, software developer Tom Liston started work on an application that would turn the tables on worms. He created LaBrea, which essentially acts like a digital tar pit, trapping hackers and worms, forcing hackers to break off attacks, and preventing worms from moving on to other computers.

The free, open-source application has been heralded in security circles and nominated for awards as a unique weapon. It's also been pulled from Lipton's Hackbusters.net site by its author. He yanked it April 15 when the Illinois resident learned that a 4-month-old state law makes it illegal to create a device capable of disrupting a communication service without the express authorization of the communication service provider.

The law also makes it a crime to conceal the existence, origin, or destination of any communication from a service provider or any lawful party. Technically, LaBrea disrupts communications and conceals the true origin of network communications. So Liston pulled LaBrea rather than risk prosecution for what he believes is, at best, a vaguely worded piece of legislation. Some software security experts, academics, and consumer-electronics-industry representatives say such legislation will curb legitimate research and speech. They refer to the state rules as "super-DMCA" laws because they claim the laws tend to be more restrictive than the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.