Black Shards Press – Electronic Gumbo is Our Specialty

Dear Mr. Flores: 

I am writing in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) currently being debated in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Although I respect the need of media providers to market their works to customers, I feel very strongly that citizens of the United States and the world need a free and unfettered Internet – which is perhaps the last remaining space that remains relatively free from government interference – far more. 

Of course the Internet could hardly have been envisioned by the Founding Fathers; however, it should be recognized that it operates under the protection of two essential rights guaranteed under the Constitution, those being freedom of speech and freedom of association.  The fact that videos and music are occasionally bootlegged on the information super highway is not a valid reason for closing the road or adding "speed bumps".  Laws already exist to protect media giants – law makers and enforcement should use them instead of foolishly attempting to regulate the online activities of the world’s constituents.

In fact, the reality of the situation is that media  companies themselves bear much of the blame for online piracy.  Fifteen years ago music piracy was a major issue for them.  Then iTunes came along, established a legitimate online market, and the problem was effectively solved.  The same thing could and should happen in the video space today.  It will happen soon, once media companies stop squabbling and recognize that Netflix and its competitors are the market for the secondary release of their products.  This will happen in the natural course of events; no irreversible government action is required.

In conclusion, I urge you to recognize that SOPA is a bad idea that does not deserve to be considered by Congress, let alone be passed into law,  and to work diligently to make sure this ill-met legislation is withdrawn immediately.

Thank you,

Marc Moore

P.S.  Frankly I expect more than knee-jerk reactions from Republican lawmakers.  A bill like SOPA is enough to make me seriously re-think my steadfast support for the party I have consistently voted in favor of my entire life.

As the valiant and few readers of this once-great blog are undoubtedly aware, I’ve not been writing much – or even thinking much – about politics lately. You may also be aware that, while I have a certain sympatico with Ron Paul’s small-government, balanced-budget mindset, I also regard him as a bit of a kook.

Nevertheless, when verbal and literary conservative-on-conservative violence escalates to the point of ridiculousness, as now, I find I must speak up, even through the multiple levels of apathy that form my disinterest in the ugly farce is the winnowing process as we know it.

What’s got me so irked? David Swindle’s column bashing Ron Paul contains some valuable food for thought for those wavering on the event horizon of Paul’s influence singularity; however, Swindle goes too far with this outrageously childish bit of non-transitive logic:

If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite [sic]. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.

False. There were many valid reasons for not interfering in internal German politics in the 1930s, notably a little economic downturn called the Great Depression. Heard of it, David? The fact is, America had all she could do to stay afloat while Hitler was consolidating power.

Moreover, a casual student of American demographics will be aware that a significant percentage of immigrants to this country came from Germany or neighboring counties. Sympathy with Germany the fatherland, as opposed to Germany the fascist state, was significant, even compared with the strength of our ties to Great Britain. It was hardly a no-brainer to go to war a second time with Germany, particularly when our WW I allies were mincing around the issue themselves.

Now, Swindle is undoubtedly correct in saying more Jews would have died in Hitler’s ovens if the U.S. had not become involved in WW II. The Nazis would not have been defeated without our contribution, so no other argument is possible.

Nevertheless, to equate non-interventionism with anti-Semitism is both outrageous and fallacious. The many valuable successes of post-WW II American interventionism notwithstanding – Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, anyone? – there is no inherent value in our nation becoming embroiled in foreign entanglements. Each action must be carefully weighed and pursued on its own merits. This is what our leaders were doing, in fact, when Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and lost the war for the Axis by forcing us to take sides against them. Perhaps we would have done so anyway, but it is pure folly on Swindle’s part to believe that our participation on the side of the Allies was either demanded or inevitable.

Similarly, the manner in which Swindle applies the anti-Semite label to Dr. Paul – the only popular libertarian presidential candidate in recent memory – nearly 80 years later is galling. It’s clear to me that traditional conservatives are threatened by Paul. This fear causes them to lose their cool and say foolish things. In his panic, Swindle presents such a severe and personal bias against Paul as to render the question of his own impartiality void and his words valueless.

Taxation is inherently authoritarian, but it’s not necessarily unfair. What is unfair is a system in which 2 families with identical characteristics can pay wildly different amounts of tax based on their exploitation of vagaries of the tax code. Similarly, it is unfair for family A to pay 25% of their income in tax when family B pays 2%.

Dr. Starner Jones’ short letter to the White House accurately puts the blame on a “Culture Crisis” instead of a “Health Care Crisis”. It’s worth a quick read.

—

Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive Shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive Brand of tennis shoes, and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ring tone. While glancing over her
Patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as “Medicaid”!

During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman’s health care? I contend that our nation’s “health care crisis” is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a “crisis of culture”, a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

It is a culture based on the irresponsible credo that “I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.”

Once you fix this “culture crisis” that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you’ll be amazed at how quickly our nation’s health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD

—

FYI, Ohio spent 26% of its state budget in 2010 on Medicaid. Ohio is about average in this regard.

The Founding Fathers never intended for us to be ruled by a monolithic central government and the reason should be obvious, even to a big-government liberal: Democracy is a never-ending experiment. For it to work, we need competition of ideas inside government as well as in the business world. As much policy as possible should be decided at the state level so we can try new ideas, observe what doesn’t work and adopt those things that do. A controlling central government denies us the right to experiment, learn, and grow. This is a failing proposition, as other nations have proven.

The American economy is built on the illusion of hope rather than the foundation of economic reason. Our immediate, desperate need to balance the current budget, reduce the total deficit, and embrace profitability as the single most important financial fundamental is something that transcends political parties and narrow ideological interests. We must hold Washington accountable to this goal in every election.

FreedomWorks provides a very telling graph demonstrating the country’s recent, belated move toward fiscal responsibility:

There are two caveats to be aware of in regard to this recent trend. The first is that the House’s budget has not passed and is therefore only a proposal at this point. Great harm can still be done by the more liberal Senate.

The second caveat is that liberals all across America are outraged at the House’s attempt to reign in the entitlements championed and consumed by Democrats. Expect resistance.

Who’s more credible when it comes to reducing the federal budget deficit, Barack Obama or Paul Ryan? It should be no surprise that Mr. Ryan’s proposed plan is more financially responsible, to the tune of $4T. Now that’s change we can believe in.  Read all about it.