Is the Un-Fair Campaign Unfair?

An advertising campaign has started in Duluth to call attention to racism. One of its major slogans is "It's hard to see racism when you're white." A backlash has come about that has surprised the supporters of this initiative. A backlash is to be expected from a certain segment of the population that is truly racist (or anti anything or anybody different from themselves).

The other more reasoned backlash is that made by Phil Pierson who is quoted in the Duluth News Tribune: "The issue of racism is real, but it doesn't only pertain to whites. A campaign directed only to white people is by definition racist." See "Backlash slams 'Un-Fair' anti-racism campaign in Twin Ports", Duluth News Tribune, 2012-01-31. I can't find the Facebook page he and others apparently started.

I've long resented those who talk of "white privilege". If I'm so privileged, how did Herman Cain and Oprah Winfrey become so much better known than I am and far wealthier than I'll ever be?

I also resent people categorizing me by my skin color; that is also racist.

Just like too many people assume that because someone is black, Asian, Indian, whatever, they have such and such characteristics, it is unfair to assume that because someone is white they are "privileged". People have a wide range of characteristics that defy stereotypes.

What goes through my mind on "white privilege" is that those stating this don't know me. They don't know who I consider a relative and who considers me a relative. They don't know who I have befriended and who has befriended me. They don't know who I've regularly had meals with. They don't know who I've helped and who has helped me. They don't know who I've proven wrong and who has proven me wrong. They don't know who has looked up to me and who I've looked up to.

See also "Extremism continues on the Unfair campaign".

Voting - many would rather complain than act

I posted the following to http://www.facebook.com/occupyvotingbooths. I have not had a single reaction. But there are plenty of other posts complaining about politicians, those who would limit voting, and the big money driving politics.

I'm disappointed with most of the postings in this community. We have plenty of places to complain about the state of politics and the abuse of power. I was hoping this community would be more focused on getting people out to vote rather than blaming others for our low election turnouts.

I was hoping that people would be suggesting letters to the editor, meetings to get out the vote, and links to stuff to help people to get the vote out - like T-shirts and bumper stickers.

Besides Occupy Voting Booths 2012, how about

Be the demōs in democracy!

Vote!

The only vote that doesn't count

Is the vote not cast!

Don't like any of the candidates?

Vote for Wright In!

You signed the recall petition,

Now vote!

A majority of a 60% turnout

could be less than

31% of the eligible voters!

Getting fewer votes than no-shows

Does not a mandate make!

(There's gotta be a better way to say this last).

Probably none of these will go viral, but one of you clever people must have something that will be repeated on both NPR and FoxNews.

Buying tires – a moral dilemma?

For background on this dilemma, see "Gang aft agley in the North Woods".

The advice Kevin gave on tires was to buy tires from Sam's Club or Cooper AT3 tires from Duluth Tire. The AT3s have a more aggressive tread than the Michelins that I had. Since I try to buy local I called Duluth Tire. Duluth Tire told me that the AT3s in the size I wanted were on back order.

I called back a week later and a week later and … Somewhere along the line I was told that there was a strike. I sent an email to customer service at Cooper and was told that they were working through a big backlog. A search of the web gave me the info that actually Cooper had locked out its union employees at its Findlay, Ohio plant. Oh boy, do I buy the Coopers produced by substitute workers or do I buy other tires probably not made in America. Do I buy tires made in my home state and in a town I worked in one summer? Or from somewhere else?

On one of my trips through the part of Duluth where Duluth Tire is located, I drove by. Oh, they also sell Firestone and Bridgestone. OK, I'll stop in soon just to see what choices I have.

I did so last Friday afternoon when it was snowing. Surprise! They had received eight AT3s that morning. I'll take four! We are busy; can you come back Monday? Well, OK. Oh, a bay just opened up, we can do it now. Super!

Less than an hour later, the tires were on and the spare back underneath. I wrote the check for a few dollars less than I had expected. I got in my SUV, turned on the ignition, and saw the low tire light was on. I went back in and was told the computer would reset itself once I started driving. Sure enough, it went off before I left the parking lot.

The cost of the tires may seem like a lot, but the safety I bought is priceless. These tires stop easily on packed snow. One of my tests was to go up a steep hill with a stop sign at the top. I went up slowly without a slip. I timed it so that the vehicle in front of me was out of the intersection when I got to the top. I'm not sure if I stopped or rolled slowly into the cross street. However I did it, there was nary a spin.

The next day we drove to the cabin on packed snow, 40-50 mph depending on the curves. The tires held beautifully. I should have replaced the skidders long ago.

Official announcement of Human 2.0

God is pleased to announce the release of Human 2.0, code named Eve. Eve has over 250 new and exciting features that should make life easier for all. The only known problem is that Human 1.0, code named Adam, has a hard time understanding Eve and why she keeps pointing out his shortcomings.

Political manipulation - begging the question

Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, has sent out an email in support of the PolyMet mining project in St. Louis County, Minnesota. The title of the article is "In case you missed it: Environmentally sound mining vital to Minnesota's economy". You can also find it at http://cravaack.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100082997.10586.164&gen=1.

What he does is conflate not very controversial iron and steel projects with a very controversial sulfide copper mining project. Then he phrases a poll question: "Do you support responsible expansion of precious and strategic metal mining operations in MN?" The choices are yes, no, and not sure. My gosh, most people are for responsible operations of any kind, but is the Poly Met project a responsible operation?

Rep. Cravaack implies it is because a panel he assembled says "Mining without harm is the only way to build a sustainable, responsible minerals-exploration industry in northern Minnesota." One, he doesn't say if the panel stated if the PolyMet project would be without harm. Two, he doesn't say in the email or the web page who is on the panel. Did it include town boards who will have to maintain the limited weight roads damaged by heavy equipment? Did it include the Indian tribes who say wild rice yields will be adversely affected? Did it include all the guides and outfitters who will see their business evaporate?

Let's draw the curtain aside and look at who's supporting this project and another sulfide mining project. Tony Hayward, CEO of BP when the Deep Horizon oil rig blew up, was hired as the "executive expert in charge of environment and safety" for Glencoe, one of the backers of the PolyMet project. Twin Metals is proposing a sulfide mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area; it has hired URS Corporation to do an environmental impact study. URS Corporation declared the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis safe six months before it collapsed. URS cut corners because it was too expensive to do a proper job. See "Proposed mining operations get their environmental advice from strange quarters" by C. A. Arneson in MPR News. I recommend that you follow all the links you can, especially to Don Shelby's article at http://www.minnpost.com/donshelby/2011/07/26/30314/remember_bps_tony_hayward_hes_trying_to_get_his_life_back_in_northern_minnesota.

"It is by this superior knowledge of [the merchants and manufacturers] own interest that they have frequently imposed upon [the country gentleman's, often a member of Parliament] generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Occupy Voting Booths

A friend of my wife posted this on Facebook. I found that it had been posted at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=215620145184675&set=a.125709177509106. It is in the photo album of Re-elect President Obama at http://www.facebook.com/reelectpresidentobama2012.

Amazing how much is going on that we stumble on by accident. Occupy Voting Booths as a slogan has been going on since last fall.

There is a Facebook community http://www.facebook.com/OccupyVotingBooths. A search on Occupy, Voting, and Booth gives over a million hits, including stories in The Nation, Forbes, and the Boston Herald.

Mark November 6, 2012 on your calendar as election day. If you are not already registered, be sure you are registered well in advance; there could be long lines where same-day registration is allowed. Be sure to show up on election day. The only votes that don't count are those not cast.

Please pass the above sign on to your friends and relatives.

Quote of the day - George III and liberty

"The pride, the glory of Britain, and the direct end of its constitution is political liberty."
- Prince of Wales, soon to be George III (crowned 1760)
The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood, p 14

Many confuse the liberty sought in 1775 with the liberty to do a long list of things without regard to others. What was sought was the liberty to govern themselves, including taxation. What was forgotten in Britain was that all the political liberty on the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland did not even extend to Ireland, much less the colonies in America.

Sure, the colonies had all kinds of government, colonial, county, city, and town, but government in America was subservient to Parliament in Britain and without any representation from the Colonies, other than lobbyists.

Protesting is great, but voting is better

Google, Wikipedia, and others did a great job of mobilizing people to protest SOPA and PIPA.

It would be even better if they mobilize people to vote in November. Not support any candidate, but just get people to show up and vote.

I sent feedback to Google and Wikimedia about this. I hope you will do the same and encourage your friends to do the same. We have to stop "landslides" of less than half the eligible voters.

Be the demōs in democracy!

Vote!

Please pass this entry to your friends. It's URL is http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/01/protesting-is-great-but-voting-is.html

Reading the fine print so we don't have to

Morningstar has started a new service called footnoted, which reports and analyzes the fine print of many companies' SEC filings.

The edition available today includes articles on

Jerry Yang leaving Yahoo "to pursue other interests, and not due to any disagreement with the Company",
The perks at a dental supply company that explain why your dental work costs so much,
The golden parachutes for executives who screw up, and
The whopping entitlements that directors at Google get.

I've added footnoted.com to my bookmarks. It will be interesting to delve into it now and then.

The once and probably not future Republicans

The Coffee Party posted the following on Facebook:

"We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth." - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States of America

I added the comment, "Give me that old-time Republican!!"

I might add that "public good" is used 25 times in the Federalist Papers, many times more than "profit" or "corporation", both of which have multiple meanings.

Some thoughts on the Tuskegee Airmen

Today, George Lucas' "Red Tails" is opening. It is a film about the Tuskegee Airmen, the black pilots in WWII who were cheered by bomber pilots in Europe and jeered by white citizens in the South.

Both the Duluth News Tribune (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/220474/group/homepage/) and the Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/local/137757468.html) have articles on the only surviving Tuskegee Airman living in Minnesota, Joe Gomer.

I know Joe Gomer but I haven't seen him for a while. He and his wife attended the Duluth Superior Symphony Orchestra Concerts and plays at the UMD Theatre. I don't know if they still do because we stopped going to the DSSO concerts and we switched nights for the UMD Theatre. I do know that many people respect them and would greet them at both events.

We tried to help them at the Duluth Airport a few years ago. They arrived on an incoming flight about the same time my wife did. It was a night that taxis were scarce. I had our Prius and couldn't take them and their luggage with us. So, I drove Joe to his house to get one of their cars. Things didn't work out and so I drove him back. They eventually did get a taxi home. I don't know why I didn't take them and then come back for my wife and her luggage. Hindsight is 20/20.

The Duluth News Tribune article contains information about a proposed statue of Joe Gomer to be displayed at the Duluth Airport. I don't know. I kinda think we're too eager to create monuments in stone or words to a long list of people who are heroes to one group or another.

Roger Ebert wrote a review of "Red Tails". He thinks it is entertaining but could have had more about "the atmosphere of the Jim Crow South". He had a statement that disturbed me two ways:

"In Spike Lee's "Miracle at St. Anna" (2008), which has some of that anger, there is a flashback to a scene of black American soldiers in the Deep South being refused service by a restaurant that does accept Nazis from a nearby POW camp."

One disturbing part is that restaurants would serve German prisoners, but not black American soldiers. But it also disturbs me that so many writers call all German military personnel "Nazis". They weren't; in fact, many hated the Nazis. Watch "Das Boot" or read Carol Bly's "Shelter Half".

Flea markets are the only true free markets, sort of

Many are calling for free markets without any idea of what free markets really are. Free markets are not large corporations unencumbered by government regulation.

Flea markets and farmers' markets are better approximations of true free markets. Why is this?

A flea market has many buyers and sellers, although some sellers might think there are not enough buyers.

Buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the flea market. Of course, sellers may have to apply for limited space and it will take a bit of time to pack up to leave the flea market.

Buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision to buy or sell. The buyers can pick up the goods and even give them a small test. Sellers accepting only cash generally can assume the bills are good.

There are few externalities from a flea market. There could be lots of trash to be picked up. Some products sold may be defective and injure somebody.

Can you think of any other economic activity that even gets close to the free market standard set by flea markets and farmers' markets?

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

Why fight Super-PACs? They may do it for us

Winning Our Future PAC, a Super PAC supporter of Newt Gingrich, may win our future free of Super PACs. Sheldon Abelson have given over five million dollars to Winning our Future. As a casino owner, he doesn't seem to place his bets well. So far Newt Gingrich has incurred the wrath of the other candidates for the Republican nomination and received less than 40,000 votes. That's $125 per vote; not a very good bargain. See "Kamikaze Gingrich, on the loose in South Carolina", Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 2012-01-11, republished as "Gingrich takes the big money", Star Tribune, 2012-01-13.
His relentless attacks on Mitt Romney may also help re-elect Barack Obama. If so, Republicans may really rethink their support of money as speech. Gosh, if I have enough money to put a loud-speaker truck on every corner and blast my message so loud that nobody can have any conversation, would shutting down my loud-speakers take away my free-speech rights. Far-fetched. What about being the highest bidder for so much television time that nobody can even get a second of air-time? Is that a free-speech right?

But getting back to the real world of individual citizens, there are steps we can do to halt Super-PACs.

1) Don't watch TV. This is the easiest way to ignore Super-PACs

2) Show up and vote

3) Read newspapers and magazines. You can easily skip over pages you don't like.

4) Vote what you believe; ignore poll results

5) Talk politics with friends. Don't be passive about voting.

6) Vote in every election.

7) In case I didn't mention it, Vote! It's your patriotic duty.

Quote of the day – Learning

"Learning isn't a set of things that we know but a world that we enter."
– Adam Gopnik, "Broken Kingdom, Fifty Years of 'The Phantom Tollbooth'", The New Yorker, 2011-10-17

"The Phantom Tollbooth" is a children's book written by Norton Juster and illustrated by Jules Feiffer. It has sold over four million copies.

The article itself was a world that I entered by serendipity. I was cleaning my desk and The New Yorker was open to an article about Fukushima. As I closed the magazine, I saw the above article. Now I have to read the next article, "History: The Customer Reviews" by Patricia Pearson.

PROTECT-IP, SOPA, and corporate interests

I sent variants of the following to Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8).

Have you read Senate 968 (or the House equivalent ) in its entirety? Do you understand every statement in the bill? You can find an easier-to-read version at http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/01/text-of-protect-ip-senate-bill-968.html.

Are you aware of the ambiguity of the subtitle? What are the "other purposes"?

Are you aware that there is at least one grammatical error in the bill?

Are Republicans aware that this bill is more regulation on businesses and that it expands the bureaucracy?

Is this bill in the interests of corporations or in the interests of people? For example, can I simply write a letter to the Attorney General stating that a certain site is using one of my copyrighted pictures? Or will I have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer to make a complaint on my behalf?

This bill does give service providers a standing for denying service to those they deem acting inappropriately. But doesn't it also give a "hunting license" to companies that will go after any company or person they deem aiding and abetting inappropriate sites. For example, might these "hunters" give a long list of sites they consider inappropriate to ISPs or domain name servers? And then won't these latter have to spend resources vetting that list and acting on their findings?

This bill requires various agencies to give Congress an annual report not only an assessment of the bill's effectiveness, but a list of each instance that the Attorney General took action enforcing this bill. See Section 7. Guidelines and Studies. Will all these agencies be given sufficient resources to do this work? And will that not require more taxes?

Text of PROTECT-IP, Senate Bill 968

Downloaded from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968rs/pdf/BILLS-112s968rs.pdf on 2012-01-18 and edited by Melvyn D. Magree.

I edited out the struck out sections and the line numbers.

Calendar No. 70
112th Congress, 1st Session
S. 968
A BILL
To prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes
May 26, 2011
Reported with an amendment
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011’’ or the ‘‘PROTECT IP Act of 2011’’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act—
(1) the term ‘‘domain name’’ has the same meaning as in section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127);
(2) the term ‘‘domain name system server’’ means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name;
(3) the term ‘‘financial transaction provider’’ has the same meaning as in section 5362(4) of title 31, United States Code;
(4) the term ‘‘information location tool’’ has the same meaning as described in subsection (d) of section 512 of title 17, United States Code;
(5) the term ‘‘Internet advertising service’’ means a service that for compensation sells, purchases, brokers, serves, inserts, verifies, or clears the placement of an advertisement, including a paid or sponsored search result, link, or placement that is rendered in viewable form for any period of time on an Internet site;
(6) the term ‘‘Internet site’’ means the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name;
(7) the term ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’’ means an Internet site that—
(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the—
(i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(ii) violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or
(B) is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A)
(8) the term ‘‘Lanham Act’’ means the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the‘‘Trademark Act of 1946’’ or the ‘‘Lanham Act’’);
(9) the term ‘‘nondomestic domain name’’ means a domain name for which the domain name registry that issued the domain name and operates the relevant top level domain, and the domain name registrar for the domain name, are not located in the United States;
(10) the term ‘‘owner’’ or ‘‘operator’’ when used in connection with an Internet site shall include, respectively, any owner of a majority interest in, or any person with authority to operate, such Internet site; and
(11) the term ‘‘qualifying plaintiff’’ means—
(A) the Attorney General of the United States; or
(B) an owner of an intellectual property right, or one authorized to enforce such right, harmed by the activities of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities occurring on that Internet site.
SEC. 3. ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES OPERATED AND REGISTERED OVERSEAS.
(a) COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION.—
(1) IN PERSONAM.—The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against—
(A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities; or
(B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name.
(2) IN REM.—If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a non-domestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
(3) IDENTIFICATION OF ENTITIES.—Any action commenced by the Attorney General under this section shall identify the entities which may be required to take actions pursuant to subsection (d) if an order issues pursuant to subsection (b).
(b) ORDERS OF THE COURT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, or against a registrant of such domain name, or the owner or operator of such Internet
site dedicated to infringing activities, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, if—
(A) the domain name is used within the United States to access such Internet site; and
(B) the Internet site—
(i) conducts business directed to residents of the United States; and
(ii) harms holders of United States intellectual property rights.
(2) DETERMINATION BY THE COURT.—For purposes of determining whether an Internet site conducts business directed to residents of the United States under paragraph (1)(B)(i), a court may consider, among other indicia, whether—
(A) the Internet site is providing goods or services described in section 2(7) to users located in the United States;
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site is not intended to provide—
(i) such goods and services to users located in the United States;
(ii) access to such goods and services to users located in the United States; and
(iii) delivery of such goods and services to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site has reasonable measures in place to prevent such goods and services from being accessed from or delivered to the United States;
(D) the Internet site offers services obtained in the United States; and
(E) any prices for goods and services are indicated in the currency of the United States.
(c) NOTICE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon commencing an action under this section, the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this Act to the registrant of the domain name of the Internet site—
(A) at the postal and e-mail address appearing in the applicable publicly accessible
database of registrations, if any and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available;
(B) via the postal and e-mail address of the registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that registered or assigned the domain name, to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; and
(C) in any other such form as the court finds necessary, including as may be required by Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of this section, the actions described in this subsection shall constitute service of process.
(3) OTHER NOTICE.—Upon commencing an action under this section, the Attorney General shall also provide notice to entities identified in the complaint, or any amendments thereto, which may be required to take action pursuant to subsection (d).
(d) REQUIRED ACTIONS BASED ON COURT ORDERS.—
(1) SERVICE.—A Federal law enforcement officer, with the prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2), which have been identified in the complaint, or any amendments thereto, pursuant to subsection (a). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection:
(A) OPERATORS.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—An operator of a nonauthoritative domain name system server shall take the least burdensome technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address, except that—
(I) such operator shall not be required—
(aa) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
(bb) to take any measures with respect to domain name lookups not performed by its own domain name server or domain name system servers located outside the United States; or
(cc) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disable by other means; and
(II) nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of such an operator under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.
(ii) TEXT OF NOTICE.—The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of the notice displayed to users or customers of an operator taking an action pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall specify that the action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.

(B) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDERS.
A financial transaction provider shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order.
(C) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES.
An Internet advertising service that contracts with the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order to provide advertising to or for that site, or which knowingly serves advertising to or for such site, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to—
(i) prevent its service from providing advertisements to the Internet site associated with such domain name; or
(ii) cease making available advertisements for that site, or paid or sponsored search results, links or other placements that provide access to the domain name.
(D) INFORMATION LOCATION TOOLS.—An service provider of an information location tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, to—
(i) remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order; or
(ii) not serve a hypertext link to such Internet site.
(3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS.—Except as provided under paragraph (2)(A)(ii), an entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine whether and how to communicate such action to the entity’s users or customers.
(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of an action commenced under this section, the obligations of an entity described in this subsection shall be limited to the actions set out in each paragraph or subparagraph applicable to such entity, and no order issued pursuant to this section shall impose any additional obligations on, or require additional actions by, such entity.
(5) ACTIONS PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER.—
(A) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.—No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity receiving a court order issued under this subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
(B) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—Any entity receiving an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable to any party for any acts reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e), and any actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the Internet domain instituted pursuant to this subsection or any act, failure, or inability to restrict access to an Internet domain that is the subject of a court order issued pursuant to this subsection despite good faith efforts to do so by such entity shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
(e) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In order to compel compliance with this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief against any party receiving a court order issued pursuant to this section that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with such order.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The authority granted the Attorney General under paragraph (1) shall be the sole legal remedy for enforcing the obligations under this section of any entity described in subsection (d).
(3) DEFENSE.—A defendant in an action under paragraph (1) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with the subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is inconsistent with this Act. This showing shall serve as a defense only to the extent of such inability to comply or to the extent of such inconsistency.
(f) MODIFICATION OR VACATION OF ORDERS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—At any time after the issuance of an order under subsection (b), a motion to modify, suspend, or vacate the order may be filed by—
(A) any person, or owner or operator of property, bound by the order;
(B) any registrant of the domain name, or the owner or operator of the Internet site subject to the order;
(C) any domain name registrar or registry that has registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site subject to the order; or
(D) any entity that has received a copy of an order pursuant to subsection (d) requiring such entity to take action prescribed in that subsection.
(2) RELIEF.—Relief under this subsection shall be proper if the court finds that—
(A) the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order is no longer, or never was, an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities; or
(B) the interests of justice require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated.
(3) CONSIDERATION.—In making a relief determination under paragraph (2), a court may consider whether the domain name has expired or has been reregistered by a different party.
(4) INTERVENTION.—An entity identified pursuant to subsection (a) as an entity which may be required to take action pursuant to subsection (d) if an order issues pursuant to subsection (b) may intervene at any time in any action commenced under subsection (a), or in any action to modify, suspend, or vacate an order pursuant to this subsection. Failure to intervene in an action does not prohibit an entity notified of the action from subsequently seeking an order to modify, suspend, or terminate an order issued by the court under this Act.
(g) RELATED ACTIONS.—The Attorney General, if alleging that an Internet site previously adjudicated to be an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities is accessible or has been reconstituted at a different domain name, may commence a related action under this section against the additional domain name in the same judicial district as the previous action.
16 SEC. 4. ELIMINATING THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO STEAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ONLINE.
(a) COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION.—
(1) IN PERSONAM.—A qualifying plaintiff may commence an in personam action against—
(A) a registrant of a domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities; or
(B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a domain name.
4 (2) IN REM.—If through due diligence a qualifying plaintiff is unable to find a person described insubparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the qualifying plaintiff may commence an in rem action against a domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
(3) IDENTIFICATION OF ENTITIES.—Any action commenced by a qualifying plaintiff under this section shall identify the entities which may be required to take actions pursuant to subsection (d) if an order issues pursuant to subsection (b).
(b) ORDERS OF THE COURT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—On application of a qualifying plaintiff following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, or against a registrant of such domain name, or the owner or operator of such Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, if—
(A) the domain name is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar or domain name registry that located or doing business in the United States; or
(B)(i) the domain name is used within the United States to access such Internet site; and
(ii) the Internet site—
(I) conducts business directed to residents of the United States; and
(II) harms holders of United States intellectual property rights.
16 (2) DETERMINATION BY THE COURT.—For purposes of determining whether an Internet site conducts business directed to residents of the United States under paragraph (1)(B)(ii)(I), a court may consider, among other indicia, whether—
(A) the Internet site is providing goods or services described in section 2(7) to users located in the United States;
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site is not intended to provide—
(i) such goods and services to users located in the United States;
(ii) access to such goods and services to users located in the United States; and
(iii) delivery of such goods and services to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site has reasonable measures in place to prevent such goods and services from being accessed from or delivered to the United States;
(D) the Internet site offers services obtained in the United States; and
(E) any prices for goods and services are indicated in the currency of the United States.
(c) NOTICE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon commencing an action under this section, the qualifying plaintiff shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this Act to the registrant of the domain name of the Internet site—
(A) at the postal and e-mail address appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of registrations, if any and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available;
(B) via the postal and e-mail address of the registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that registered or assigned the domain name, to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; and
(C) in any other such form as the court finds necessary, including as may be required by Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of this section, the actions described in this subsection shall constitute service of process.
(3) OTHER NOTICE.—Upon commencing an action under this section, the qualifying plaintiff shall also provide notice to entities identified in the complaint, or any amendments thereto, which may be required to take action pursuant to subsection (d).
(d) REQUIRED ACTIONS BASED ON COURT ORDERS.—
(1) SERVICE.—A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior approval of the court, may, serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2), which have been identified in the complaint, or any amendments thereto, pursuant to subsection (a). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection:
(A) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDERS.—
A financial transaction provider shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order.
(B) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES.—
An Internet advertising service that contracts with the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order to provide advertising to or for that site, or which knowingly serves advertising to or for such site, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to—
(i) prevent its service from providing advertisements to the Internet site associated with such domain name; or
(ii) cease making available advertisements for that site, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or placements that provide access to the domain name.
(3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS.—An entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine how to communicate such action to the entity’s users or customers.
(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—
For purposes of an action commenced under this section, the obligations of an entity described in this subsection shall be limited to the actions set out in each paragraph or subparagraph applicable to such entity, and no order issued pursuant to this section shall impose any additional obligations on, or require additional actions by, such entity.
(5) ACTIONS PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER.—
(A) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.—No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity receiving a court order issued under this subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
23 (B) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—
Any entity receiving an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable to any party for any acts reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e), and any actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the Internet domain instituted pursuant to this subsection or any act, failure, or inability to restrict access to an Internet domain that is the subject of a court order issued pursuant to this subsection despite good faith efforts to do so by such entity shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
(e) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In order to compel compliance with this section, the qualifying plaintiff may bring an action for injunctive relief against any party receiving a court order issued pursuant to this section that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with such order.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The authority granted a qualifying plaintiff under paragraph (1) shall be the sole legal remedy for enforcing the obligations under this section of any entity described in subsection (d).
(3) DEFENSE.—A defendant in an action commenced under paragraph (1) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with the subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is inconsistent with this Act.
This showing shall serve as a defense only to the extent of such inability to comply or to the extent of such inconsistency.
(f) MODIFICATION OR VACATION OF ORDERS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—At any time after the issuance of an order under subsection (b), a motion to modify, suspend, or vacate the order may be filed by—
(A) any person, or owner or operator of property, bound by the order;
(B) any registrant of the domain name, or the owner or operator of the Internet site subject to the order;
(C) any domain name registrar or registry that has registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site subject to the order; or
(D) any entity that has received a copy of an order pursuant to subsection (d) requiring such entity to take action prescribed in that subsection.
(2) RELIEF.—Relief under this subsection shall be proper if the court finds that—
(A) the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order is no longer, or never was, dedicated to infringing activities as defined in this Act; or
(B) the interests of justice require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated.
(3) CONSIDERATION.—In making a relief determination under paragraph (2), a court may consider whether the domain name has expired or has been reregistered by a different party.
(4) INTERVENTION.—An entity identified pursuant to subsection (a) as an entity which may be required to take action pursuant to subsection (d) if an order issues pursuant to subsection (b) may intervene at any time in any action commenced under subsection (a), or in any action to modify, suspend, or vacate an order pursuant to this subsection. Failure to intervene in an action does not prohibit an entity notified of the action from subsequently seeking an order to modify, suspend, or terminate an order issued by the court under this Act.
(g) RELATED ACTIONS.—A qualifying plaintiff, if alleging that an Internet site previously adjudicated to be an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities is accessible or has been reconstituted at a different domain name, may commence a related action under this section against the additional domain name in the same judicial district as the previous action.
8 SEC. 5. VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST WEBSITES STEALING AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—No financial transaction provider or Internet advertising service shall be liable for damages to any person for voluntarily taking any action described in section 3(d) or 4(d) with regard to an Internet site if the entity acting in good faith and based on credible evidence has a reasonable belief that the Internet site is an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
(b) INTERNET SITES ENGAGED IN INFRINGING ACTIVITIES THAT ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH.—
(1) REFUSAL OF SERVICE.—A domain name registry, domain name registrar, financial transaction provider, information location tool, or Internet advertising service, acting in good faith and based on credible evidence, may stop providing or refuse to provide services to an infringing Internet site that endangers the public health.
(2) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—An entity described in paragraph (1), including its directors, officers, employees, or agents, that ceases or refused to provide services under paragraph (1) shall not be liable to any party under any Federal or State law for such action.
7 (3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection—
(A) the term ‘‘adulterated’’ has the same meaning as in section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351);
(B) an ‘‘infringing Internet site that endangers the public health’’ means—
(i) an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities for which the counterfeit products that it offers, sells, dispenses, or distributes are controlled or non-controlled prescription medication; or
(ii) an Internet site that has no significant use other than, or is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and
facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for—
(I) offering, selling, dispensing, or distributing any controlled or non-controlled prescription medication, and does so regularly without a valid prescription; or
(II) offering, selling, dispensing, or distributing any controlled or noncontrolled prescription medication, and does so regularly for medication that is adulterated or misbranded;
(C) the term ‘‘misbranded’’ has the same meaning as in section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352); and
(D) the term ‘‘valid prescription’’ has the same meaning as in section 309(e)(2)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 829(e)(2)(A)).
18 SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSES.
(a) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL REMEDIES.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or expand civil or criminal remedies available to any person (including the United States) for infringing activities on the Internet pursuant to any other Federal or State law.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO VICARIOUS OR CONTRIBUTORY LIABILITY.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for any cause of action available under the Lanham Act or title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under section 512 of such title 17, or to create an obligation to take action pursuant to section
8 5 of this Act.
(c) RELATIONSHIP WITH SECTION 512 OF TITLE 17.—
Nothing in this Act, no identification of entities in section 3(a) or 4(a), no notice provided pursuant to section 3(c) or 4(c), no order issued pursuant to sections 3(b) or 4(b), and no order issued or served pursuant to sections 3(d) or 4(d), shall serve as a basis for determining the application of section 512 of title 17, United States Code.
SEC. 7. GUIDELINES AND STUDIES.
(a) GUIDELINES.—The Attorney General shall—
(1) publish procedures developed in consultation with other relevant law enforcement agencies, including the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to receive information from the public about Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities; and
(2) develop a deconfliction process in consultation with other law enforcement agencies, including the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to coordinate enforcement activities brought under this Act.
(b) REPORTS.—
(1) REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN MEASURES.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, shall conduct a study and report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on the following:
(A) An assessment of the effects, if any, of the implementation of section 3(d)(2)(A) on the accessibility of Internet sites dedicated to infringing activity.
(B) An assessment of the effects, if any, of the implementation of section 3(d)(2)(A) on the deployment, security, and reliability of the domain name system and associated Internet processes, including Domain Name System Security Extensions.
(C) Recommendations, if any, for modifying or amending this Act to increase effectiveness or ameliorate any unintended effects of section 3(d)(2)(A).
(2) REPORT ON OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS.—The Register of Copyrights shall, in consultation with the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States and other stakeholders—
(A) conduct a study on—
(i) the enforcement and effectiveness of this Act;
(ii) the burden of carrying out the requirements of this Act, if any, on intermediaries;
(iii) the need for cost reimbursement for intermediaries for carrying out the requirements of this Act; and
(iv) the need to modify or amend this Act to apply to emerging technologies; and
(B) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on—
(i) the results of the study conducted under subparagraph (A); and
(ii) any recommendations that the Register may have as a result of the study.
(3) ANNUAL OVERSIGHT REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives the following information with respect to the preceding year:
(A) Each instance in which an action was commenced under section 3(a)(1) or 3(a)(2), and each instance in which an action was commenced by the Attorney General under section 4(a)(1) or 4(a)(2), including the name of any party against whom the action was brought.
(B) Each instance in which a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or injunction was issued pursuant to section 3(b)(1), and each instance in which a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or injunction was issued pursuant to section 4(b)(1) in an action commenced by the Attorney General, including the name of any party against whom the order or injunction was issued.
(C) Each instance in which an action commenced under section 3(a)(1) or 3(a)(2), or an action commenced by the Attorney General under section 4(a)(1) or 4(a)(2), was concluded without the issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or injunction, including the reason for the conclusion of the action.
(D) Each proof of service filed with the court pursuant to section 3(d)(1), or filed pursuant to section 4(d)(1) in an action commenced by the Attorney General.
(E) Each action for injunctive relief brought pursuant to section 3(e), or brought pursuant to section 4(e) in an action commenced by the Attorney General, including the name of any party against whom the action for relief was brought.
(F) Each motion granted by a court to modify, suspend or vacate an order that was filed under section 3(f)(1), or filed under section 4(f)(1) in an action commenced by the Attorney General, including the relief obtained.
(G) Each related action commenced pursuant to section 3(g), or commenced by the Attorney General pursuant to section 4(g), including the name of any party against whom an action was commenced.
(4) GAO REPORT ON PRIVATE ACTIONS.—Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Comptroller General shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representative each instance in the previous year in which an action was commenced under sections 4(a)(1) or 4(a)(2) by a qualifying plaintiff that is not the Attorney General, including the names of any parties to each such action.

SEC. 8. PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS AND INFRINGING DEVICES.
Notwithstanding section 1905 of title 18, United States Code—
(1) if United States Customs and Border Protection suspects a product of being imported or exported in violation of section 42 of the Lanham Act, and subject to any applicable bonding requirements, the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to share information on, and unredacted samples of, products and their packaging and labels, or photos of such products, packaging and labels, with the rightholders of the trademark suspected of being copied or simulated, for purposes of determining whether the products are prohibited from importation pursuant to such section; and
(2) upon seizure of material by United States Customs and Border Protection imported in violation of subsection (a)(2) or subsection (b) of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code, the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to share information about, and provide samples to affected parties, subject to any applicable bonding requirements, as to the seizure of material designed to circumvent technological measures or protection afforded by a technological measure that controls access to or protects the owner’s work protected by copyright under such title.

Facts, figures, and finagling

Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8), in his "Week in Review & Look Ahead" for January 13, quotes the National Association of Manufacturers that the Keystone XL pipeline project is "estimated to create 20,000 high-paying manufacturing and construction jobs".

So, what is a "high-paying" job? My wife cynically says anything above minimum wage. For starters, I'll go with $20/hour. At forty hours per week that would be $800/week and $41,600/year. So, 20,000 workers would be paid 832 million dollars. I was often told that the overhead for employees was equal to their salary. We do have to add 6.2 percent payroll tax, health insurance, and liability insurance. Those would easily take us over one billion dollars just for labor for the pipeline. But if "high-paying" really means high-paying, then we're probably talking $40 or more an hour. That means were talking over two billion dollars for labor for the pipeline. But these probably won't be 40-hour weeks, but more likely 60-hour weeks. That gets us to over three billion dollars.

Then we have side effects upon side effects, externalities in economic terminology.

First, all those workers will drive up local costs, making life very expensive for local people. This has already happened in the Dakotas.

Second, the free market proponents of this project should consider the anti-free market components of this project. A true free market has many buyers and sellers, buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision, buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market, and there are no externalities – costs to other than the buyers and sellers.

There will essentially be one buyer for the right of way for the pipeline. That buyer will determine which property will be required and will set a price. The property owners of that right of way are not free to leave the market; the buyer and governments have determined that they cannot leave the market. Interestingly, free marketers are very much against government interference with private affairs.

The externalities other than contamination of the aquifers have not really been considered. These include the distortion of local economies mentioned above, farmland taken out of cultivation, air pollution from the large construction project, and cost of security for the pipeline (both for safe operation and against malicious damage).

Another factor not being considered is opportunity cost. An opportunity cost is money spent for one thing that could have given greater gain elsewhere. An opportunity cost is not regularly washing your car and paying more later for rust repair or shorter useful life.

How many solar panels and windmills could these billions buy? How much battery research could these billions buy? How much energy conservation could these billions provide? How much public transportation could these billions provide? Hey, a bus driver may not have a "high-paying" job, but it is a great job with a living wage. I know, I was a bus driver. And every passenger is often one less car on the road.

What is needed, and will rarely ever happen, is a full cost-benefit analysis of projects like these. Rather than look at the benefits for a few, we should look to the benefits and costs to the whole society. Rather than cater to special interests, something many of the writers of the Constitution decried, we need to seek the public good:

"It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it." - Federalist No. 37, James Madison

I am not left-handed

Once in a while when I write something in front of another person, that person will say, "Oh! You're left-handed!" My favorite response is, "You are making a judgment on rather flimsy evidence."

I threw a ball or bowled with my right hand. I hammer and saw with my right hand. I tend to put things on a shelf with my right hand. I start small engines with my right hand.

I've come to the conclusion that I tend to do small motion activities with my left hand and large motion activities with my right hand.

I write with my left hand, I shave with my left hand, and I brush my rapidly thinning hair with my left hand. But if I scribe a line, I have the pen or pencil in my right hand. And I use my right hand on the track pad or the mouse.

Say, if a person puts a phone to their left ear, are they left-handed. I'd say people do that to leave their right-hand free to write.

I once was trying to hammer in an awkward position in which I had to pound with my left hand. I was repeating to myself, "I am not left-handed! I am not left-handed! Owwwww!" as I whacked my right thumb with the hammer.

I have been doing a lot of sawing and splitting firewood. I use the saw in my right hand; I hold the axe in my righthand; and I swing the maul over my right shoulder. Also, I start the chain saw with my right hand and use the saw as a fully right-handed person would. Now my shoulder and upper arm are paying the price of repetitive stress syndrome.

Not one to give up on my chosen chores, I keep sawing up firewood, by hand using a draw saw. I am not left-handed. It is bad enough that I do not make a straight cut with my right hand, but when I saw with my left the saw starts jamming halfway through a log even three inches in diameter. This is because I tend to twist the saw as I move the top of my hand to the right. I have to consciously twist my hand so the thumb stays on top.

And if I want to split one of these pieces of firewood, I have to do it with the axe in my right hand. It is almost impossible for me to even aim properly with the axe in my left hand.

I wrote a bit more on handiness about three years in response to a blog entry by Jim Heffernan. See "Left-handers are not underhanded".

I do have to correct the part about moving my watch to my left wrist; when I wear a watch, I wear it on my left wrist. I need my right hand to set it:)

Cost savings – Penny-wise, pound-foolish?

Wisconsin has a cost-cutting commission of some kind in operation. One of the recommendations was that schools could save $177 million by getting cheaper health insurance.

But what is the true cost of cheaper health insurance? Do employees pay more for premiums? If so, won't they want higher wages to offset their increased costs? Do employees pay more health care costs out of pocket? If so, will they be less willing to get needed medical care? If they get less medical care, will they be taking more sick days? If they take more sick days, will costs of staffing the schools go up or the effectiveness of staff go down? So, will the savings from cheaper health insurance be more than offset by higher costs elsewhere?

If any government wants to reduce costs, I have a couple of suggestions. Let's take away computers from police cars. Even assuming they cost as little as $1,000 each and if we have 1,000 police cars across the state, that would be one million dollars in savings. Let's stop using full-size especially equipped sedans for police cars. Let's replace them with Tatas from India. Instead of $30,000 plus sedans we could replace the police cars with $3,000 mini-cars. Gosh, if we have 1,000 police cars across the state, that would be a savings of 27 million dollars! Wow! Of course, what would be the cost of less effective law enforcement? I bet it would exceed 28 million dollars.

I have a better suggestion. Legislatures should write fewer and simpler bills. Then they could spend more time considering the costs and benefits to all of their constituents rather a select noisy or high-paying few. I think this would really make our 18th century politicians proud.

Two misdirected efforts concerning voter fraud

We have the Republicans loudly claiming voter fraud. Oops, that's ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) claiming voter fraud and its Republican lackeys obeying their contributors. Oops, that's bribers.

Nobody has ever proven any wide-spread voter fraud other than a few instances, and mostly ignorance on the part of convicted felons who forgot or were not informed that their voting rights hadn't been restored.

On the other hand we have Democrats loudly claiming voter disenfranchisement, especially of minorities, students, and the elderly. I wonder what percentage of the non-voting population these people represent.

We had a 63% turnout in 2008, that's over a third of the eligible voters who didn't even show up!Why not work harder get more of the 37% to show up at elections? Blaming the Republicans for the turnout is far less productive than encouraging the no-shows. The blame could be allowing no-shows to absolve themselves of their dereliction of good citizenship.

Rather than getting petitions and creating court cases, why not raise money for publicity to encourage people to vote? Put up billboards with catchy slogans. Give out or sell lawn signs and bumper stickers:

Vote! Be the Demōs in Democracy!
Don't blame me! I voted!
Be counted! Vote!

Contrasting counters to radical Islam

The January-February issue of Utne Reader has two articles about wildly contrasting ideas about countering radical Islam.

The first is "Jihad Against Islam, America's right wing is on a witch hunt, and they're tying Muslims to the stake" by Robert Steinback, from Intelligence Report, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It is a summary of how a large number of people in the U.S. believe that all Muslims are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and that "mainstream Islam advocates violence against non-Muslims". Much of this is being fueled by a "coterie of core activists". Max Blumenthal called it "the Great Islamophobic Crusade." Their complaint about the Islamic center near the World Trade Center gained support from Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. The assumption of these modern Crusaders is that the likes of Osama Bin Laden are interpreting the Koran correctly.

The second is "Bollywood's Soft Power, India's hugely popular films wage a cultural war on extremism" by Shikha Dalmia. The article was original published in The Daily. The Utne article is excerpted from Reason, a libertarian magazine.

Bollywood is "India's flamboyant film industry", and its films are shown all over Asia from Indonesia to Dubai. Dalmia likens the effect of Bollywood to extremism to the effect of rock and roll on the demise of the Soviet Union. It wasn't Reagan that brought down the Berlin Wall but the Beatles, and "Mikhail Gorbachev acknowledged to Paul McCartney that the Beatles paved the way for perestroika and glasnost".

Bollywood's allure is that it is based on Eastern values and that the actors look like the viewers. Some countries like Dubai embrace Bollywood. Others that are trying to control all aspects of life, like Pakistan, "are trying to purge Bollywood from their soil". The harder they try to limit Bollywood, the greater its popularity.

BTW, Bollywood's "three highest-grossing male leads are Muslims".

These two articles illustrate the old saw about catching more flies with honey than vinegar. And you would think that the intellectuals in the anti-Islam jihad would have learned that all the vinegar (and money and lives) that have been sloshed around in the name of defense of the U.S. would have caught on by now to the fallacy of their approach.

There is no maul at the mall

A couple of weeks ago I wanted to whack something with our splitting maul. I don't know if it was to dislodge something or to split some wood. I couldn't find it. It wasn't in the wood shed. It wasn't in the tool shed. It wasn't in the cabin. I repeated the search again. It had to be somewhere.

Then it dawned on me. It wasn't at the cabin at all. I had split the handle and the head was in the other car. See "Gang aft agley in the North Woods".

As the title implies, there is no maul at the mall. Well, there might be at Sears, but I haven't gone to Sears for years, another big box avoidance of mine. Hardware, drug, and grocery stores, the really important types of stores are just not found in malls. I think I vaguely remember one mall having a hardware store other than Sears. Well, maybe it was only a small mall.

I used to have three favorite hardware stores within ten minutes of my house, now it's down to one and it was the smallest of the three. Denny's Ace Hardware may be small, but the staff is knowledgable. I asked a roving clerk where handles were and she took me right to a reasonable selection. We selected a hickory handle the fit the head.

When I got to the cabin, I pounded the head onto the handle and inserted the wedge. Now I have a working maul again, but I won't be using it for a while. Watch for the blog entry "I'm not left-handed".

Conservatives, prudence, and the rest of us

George Will has written about "the central conservative virtue, prudence"; see
"What to make of George Will on Newt Gingrich".

I thought again about this prudence in reading "Why I'm Giving Up Cynicism for New Year's" by Bill McKibben, Yes! Magazine, 2012-01-06. McKibben wrote about the 234-194 Congressional vote "to force a quicker review of the [Keystone XL] pipeline":

"As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million."

This paragraph made me think about Will's "prudence" remark. Darn tootin' conservatives have "prudence"; they know better than to upset their paymasters.

Some of these same "prudent" conservatives are imprudent with facts and language. Maybe we should do our own fact and language change; let's call "campaign contributions" for what they are – bribes.

Now, dear reader, let me check your prudence. In the quote above "As important as the vote total…" what happened within minutes of the vote? Did those who voted "aye" receive within minutes "$42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry"?

If you thought the contributions were instantaneous, please read the quote again. "[W]ithin minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that…"

How easy it is to slant things to our own thinking!

Politics - the pot calling the kettle black

Republicans are complaining that President Obama is abusing his power by appointing Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN, complains bitterly in his weekly newsletter:

"President Obama’s extraordinary ‘recess appointments’ circumvents the American people and harms the economy.  The appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an assault on the U.S. Constitution and an unprecedented abuse of executive power.  Attempting to make a ‘recess appointment’ when the Senate is not even in recess epitomizes unaccountable Washington politics."

On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi complained in 2005 when George W. Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton to be the U.N. Ambassador:

“For President Bush to use a recess appointment for such a controversial nominee not because there was a compelling case that Mr. Bolton was the best person for the job, but merely because the President had the power to do it subverts the confirmation process in ways that will further harm the United States’ reputation in the eyes of the international community. The American people deserve better.” - Nicholas Ballasy, The Daily Caller, 2012-01-06, http://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-05-bush-recess-appointment-mistake-harms-u-211510801.html.

Now she calls Obama's appointment "bold".

First, back in the days when Congress didn't meet so often, recess appointments were necessary to keep the government functioning. This is in the Constitution:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the
Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." - Article II, Section 8.

Is the U.S. Senate in recess or not? According to the Senate Calendar, the Senate had a "pro forma session" on Jan. 3 that lasted less than a minute and another "pro forma session" today. I don't know how long today's session was, but I bet it didn't last into lunchtime.

I'm inclined to believe that the recess appointments of Bolton in 2005 and of Cordray in 2012 don't really turn on a question of law but of politics. "We don't like what you did and so we say you are violating the Constitution."