Down by the River

a.k.a. The Hunter Gets Captured by the Game.

Is this a preview of the final two episodes of The Sopranos? 

hat tips: Althouse, Andrew Sullivan 

The Right Way to Fight Movie Piracy

Reacting to this story about the ”Pirates of the Caribbean” sequel earning $401 million its first weekend by opening in theaters worldwide nearly simultaneously, Thomas P. Barnett calls it “a good way to combat pirating,” meaning the illicit copying of new movies onto bootleg DVDs sold in advance of the movie’s opening in overseas markets.  

What the motion picture industry has perhaps figured out is that they were fertilizing the market for bootlegs with a mindless strategy of rolling out popular films in different markets over a period of months.  Well, it wasn’t a mindless strategy 20 years ago.  It was a way to manage the various costs and levels of effort associated with launching a big film — the ads, the PR, distribution of the film canisters. 

But now, PR- and advertising-fueled awareness of a sequel-ized hit featuring big stars like Johnny Depp can permeate most of the known world in mere days, especially a young market craving to be plugged in to whatever’s hot. There was an irresistable entreprenuerial temptation to service that market illegally.  If the movie-in-demand is playing at a theater down the street, there’s less of a reason for anyone to buy a bootlegged copy.

Rather than using copyright law to stretch a bunch of legal tripwires that, when triggered, make felons out their biggest fans, entertainment property owners ought to take a cue from Disney’s success story and give the people what they want.  They’ll pay a reasonable price for it if they’re given a chance.  You, the entertainment companies, have built this demand.  So service it.

Bright Lights, Big City, Gone to My Planet’s Head

Bright lights, big city
Gone to my baby’s head
Bright lights, big city
Gone to my baby’s head

Nobody’s listening to Jimmy Reed, I guess.   They’re stampeding from the country to the city, all the world over.

As of last Wednesday, May 23rd, more people on Earth are living in urban areas than rural. According to Science Blog, scientists at North Carolina State University and the University of Georgia used United Nations data to determine the moment of transition. 

The United States is long past its tipping point: We became more urban than rural in 1910.

I’d tried to tell the woman
But she doesn’t believe a word I said
Go light pretty baby…
Gonna need my help some day
It’s all right pretty baby…
Gonna need my help some day

You’re gonna wish you listened
To some of those things I said

In spite of all the warnings, the reason for the rural to urban migration is obvious.  Earth’s rural areas are its most impoverished.

Findings by the International Fund for Agricultural Development show that 1.2 billion of the world’s people live on less than what a dollar a day can buy. Globally, three-fourths of these poor people live in rural areas.

The researchers add that, in addition to having a highly disproportionate share of the world’s poverty, rural areas also get the urban garbage. In exchange for useable natural resources produced by rural people for urban dwellers, rural places receive the waste products – polluted air, contaminated water, and solid and hazardous wastes – discharged by those in cities.

NC State sociology professor Dr. Ron Wimberley sees the shift as ominous, according to the university’s news release:

“So far, cities are getting whatever resource needs that can be had from rural areas,” he said. “But given global rural impoverishment, the rural-urban question for the future is not just what rural people and places can do for the world’s new urban majority. Rather, what can the urban majority do for poor rural people and the resources upon which cities depend for existence? The sustainable future of the new urban world may well depend upon the answer.”

It seems to me that this story gets closer to the heart of what I maintain is the world’s most pressing environmental task: Improving basic health conditions for the world’s rural poor, including potable water, wastewater treatment, reduction in toxic chemicals, sustainable and productive agriculture.  As Dr. Wimberley suggests, the fate of the entire world depends on how well we address these challenges. Dealing with global warming is connected with this agenda, but should not take precedence over it.

Go ahead pretty baby
Oh, honey knock yourself out
Go ahead pretty baby
Oh honey knock yourself out

I still love you baby
Cause you don’t know what it’s all about 

Checking in on CNG: Accidents Will Happen

According to the Daily Breeze, the owner-driver of a SuperShuttle van was killed while refueling at a CNG (compressed natural gas) station in Carson yesterday. Bob Mancuso, 61, was thrown 30 feet by the powerful explosion. There’s no photo to illustrate the story, but the writer describes the back of the van as “twisted out of shape” and the fueling station as littered with “shards of metal and plastic.” It sounds lucky that more people weren’t killed or hurt.

Why did this happen?

Sheriff’s investigators do not know the cause of the 10 a.m. incident, but Mancuso’s wife, Dianne, said her husband had been rear-ended by a drunken driver earlier in the month and had just gotten the vehicle back from the repair shop the night before.

“He got the van back last night and was told everything was OK,” she said.

“It’s not something anybody would ever expect,” she said a few hours after the blast.

Gulp.

Digging around the web for information on CNG, I was a little surprised at the circumstances of this accident. The potential for a deadly accident if a CNG tank is punctured is well-known. I’d be curious what procedures SuperShuttle follows after one of its franchisees is rear-ended to ensure that the fuel tank is not compromised. Does SuperShuttle have an authorized repair shop? Since the franchisee owns and operates his or her vehicle, there’s no revenue coming in if the van’s in the shop. Does that create a perverse incentive to turn around repairs too rapidly?

In the story, Mancuso does not come off as a careless man.

Although a smoker, Mancuso would never hold a lit cigarette while filling the tank, his wife said.

“He had the highest respect for that fuel,” she said. “My husband is stubborn, but he had a lot of respect. That is something you don’t play around with.”

CNG is one of the alternative fuels that began to gain acceptance in the late 1980s as a cleaner alternative to gasoline and diesel. I seem to recall SuperShuttle making a lot of noise about its switch to CNG here locally, but the company’s current website makes no environmental boasts.

The firm was purchased by Veolia Transportation in a deal announced last October. Veolia, which was previously known at Connex, also runs the Metrolink rail service in LA. It’s a subsidiary of the France-based Veolia Environment, which itself was a spin-off from Vivendi. Veolia Environment’s tagline is “The Industry of the Environment.” They’re involved in a number of environmental concerns around the world, but I couldn’t find any specific reference to CNG.

I did look up “CNG accidents” however, and found this horrific story from India, where many of the buses run on CNG:

Ahmedabad, May 15 (PTI): The number of dead in yesterday’s collision between a CNG-run state transport bus and a chemical tanker in Anand district rose to 29 today, police said here.

A total of 29 bodies have been recovered so far and police have been able to identify six of them. They include four women and drivers of the bus and the tanker.

Fourteen people were injured in the accident.

Most of the victims were charred beyond recognition, police said.

The mishap occurred when the bus which was headed towards Vadodara on national highway number eight in Anand district hit the chemical tanker while trying to overtake.

This might be a good time for whatever companies market CNG, CNG fuel tanks, and CNG-powered vehicles to take a look at whether they’re doing all they can to safeguard the public. Are the operators of CNG vehicles properly educated for safety? Are the repair requirements sufficiently stringent? Are the tanks as safe as they can be, given the catastrophic result if they are breached?

CNG is a cleaner-burning, domestically available fuel that will probably get renewed attention as all the presidential candidates campaign for U.S. energy independence and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. When the spotlight hits, the CNG business might want to be ready for questions.

Defining Moments (Updated)*

With the White House an open seat in 2008, you’d think the upcoming election would be about more than Gotcha!  Especially since we seem to be living in consequential times.  But if you thought that, you’d be naive.  Here’s what the most influential and most passionate netroots blogger thinks will win the election for the Democrats next year:

Videotape everything they do

by kos

Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:10:19 PM PDT

Every appearance by a top Republican official or candidate should be recorded. Every one of them.

All it takes is one “Macaca” incident to transform a race or create one where one didn’t exist. As the Montana incident blogged earlier today showed, a video can knock out prospective candidates before they even enter.

And this is no longer about finding one big blunder to put on a campaign commercial. It’s about using video and (free) technologies like YouTube to build narratives about opponents, using their own words, at their own events.

It’s never too early to start.

We’ve got a long, difficult slog ahead of us next year. The more material we amass today, the better we’ll able to use that video to support our efforts next year.

I mean, that’s fine.  And, coming from Markos Moulitsas, it’s hardly a surprise.  As he has said of himself: “They want to make me into the latest Jesse Jackson, but I’m not ideological at all.  I’m just all about winning.”

The problem with the politics of scandal, gaffes, embarassments and “macaca moments” is that, like umpire mistakes in a baseball game, candidate blunders tend to even out.  As a group, almost all politicians are weird.   Count on them to hide something that will be exposed, say something at odds with what they profess to believe, or think in their blind arrogance that they can get away with something that won’t stand the light of day.

Calling for an accumulation of “gotcha” moments is a strategy about nothing, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld.  It’s not about persuading or inspiring voters.  It merely reminds them that we are governed by two-faced narcissistic jerks.  That’s why negative campaigning’s most notable effect is to suppress voter turnout.  It doesn’t make voters say, ”Aha! Now I prefer X over Y.”  It makes them say, “I was going to vote for Y, but now, ew.” 

Kos is right. If you turn off more Republicans than Democrats, you’ve improved your chances of winning.  But no matter how much video you capture, you can’t depend on coming out ahead in the gotcha race.  It only works if the other side lets its guard down and lets you off the hook when you make your own blunders.  In the YouTube era, that’s basically an assumption that your opponents will commit professional suicide.  Good luck with that.

But beyond the strategic limits of “gotcha” politics, I also question whether “macaca moments” are what voters will be asking for in 2008.  I won’t go as far as to say voters in 2008 will find gaffes to be trivial, and ignore them. I’m not Pollyanna.  But I hope the Democratic Party only half-listens to Kos.  Tactics will matter, but I predict ideas will matter more. 

*UPDATE, 5/24/07.  Todd Ziegler of the Bivings Report raises a related concern today.

In many ways, the story of the web (particularly video) in politics the last few years has been the story of “gotcha” moments. Bad jokes. Pretty hair. Southern accents. Screaming. Terror taxis. Macaca. No strings.The humiliating videos get a lot more play than the substitutive ones (admittedly nobody has done anything that interesting with video this cycle).

Some of the moments linked to above are unforgivable. But in some cases these “gotcha” moments are examples of candidates being real.

So we’re in a situation where we want candidates to be authentic but are quick to punish them when they are. And the constant presence of voters with cameras ensures that there will be plenty of these gotcha moments.

It seems to me that instead of creating a more open election, we may be creating one where the candidate that is the most on message and the most robotic is rewarded. It can be argued that it wasn’t YouTube that defeated George Allen, but his own lack of discipline on the stump. The candidate that makes the least mistakes wins.

Note to Kos:  Of the seven links embedded in Zeigler’s post, four embarass Democrats.  You’d really have to have partisan blinders firmly in place to think “macaca-moment” politics favors one party over the other.

“I’m Not Too Happy With Your Inability to Provide Me With Some Cookies. If We Could Fix This Situation, That Would Be Great.”

Ever had a roomate?  Ever worked in an office with a shared kitchen?  Then this is the site for you.

If you’ve ever written one of these “passive-aggressive notes,” now you’re on notice. It might show up on a website, like this:

or this:

Washed My &%*@ In Muddy Water

I thought of that old Johnny Rivers tune:

I washed my hands in muddy water
I washed my hands, but they didn’t come clean
I tried to do like my daddy told me, now
I must have washed my hands in a muddy stream

as I was reading about a new book co-authored by an old friend of mine, Dean Calbreath.  Dean is part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the San Diego Union-Tribune that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s elaborate and shameless schemes to solicit bribes from military contractors bidding on classified projects. 

The team has published a book about Cunningham, The Wrong Stuff: The Extraordinary Saga of Randy “Duke” Cunningham, the Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught, and TPM Muckracker’s Paul Kiel calls it today’s “Must Read.”  Kiel quotes the following unforgettable (in a bad way) passage:

…even (lobbyist Brent) Wilkes drew a line on what he would do for the congressman. For one thing, Wilkes was totally disgusted by the hot tub Cunningham put on the boat’s deck during the autumn and winter. What repelled Wilkes — and others invited to the parties — was both the water Cunningham put in the hot tub and the congressman’s penchant for using it while naked, even if everybody else at the party was clothed. Cunningham used water siphoned directly from the polluted Potomac River and never changed it out during the season. “Wilkes thought it was unbelievably dirty and joked if you got in there it would leave a dark water line on your chest,” said one person familiar with the parties. “The water was so gross that very few people were willing to get into the hot tub other than Duke and his paramour.” That was a reference to Cunningham’s most frequently seen girlfriend, a flight attendant who lived in Maryland.One of these parties started at the Capital Grille with Cunningham ordering his usual filet mignon — very well done — with iceberg lettuce salad and White Oak. Wilkes used the dinner to update Cunningham on the appropriations he wanted. Cunningham then took the whole group back to the boat where they drank more wine, sitting on white leather sofas while Cunningham told more war stories. Cunningham then took his clothes off and invited all to join him in the polluted hot tub that was hidden from the neighbors by a white tarp. There were no takers.

Talk about a cesspool of corruption…Bleah!

Like Bob Kerrey Says

I’ve just about given up trying to make the case for the Iraq war. Not because I don’t believe it was the right thing to do, because it was. Not because I mind sticking out like a sore thumb among virtually all my friends and family, because I don’t. Not even because Bush and (especially) Rumsfeld repeatedly made bad decisions and blunders that complicated what was already going to be a hard slog, because their mistakes don’t undermine the philosophical or strategic rationale.

No, I’m ready to throw in the towel because it’s obvious nobody cares anymore. I don’t think Democrats and liberals are stupid: They see the peril in ditching Iraq, and the rising tide of blood our departure would cause. They just don’t give a damn.  Republicans are starting to feel the same way.  Their insouciance is the flip side of arrogance, both of them a privilege our vast military might affords us.

I’ve worked for people whose philosophy of life is, “I’ll worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.” If a power vacuum at the heart of the Middle East causes horrible problems there and here, fine. We’ll deal with them when they arise — and maybe score a few points by blaming that idiot Bush. It’s cynical, but it’s not hidden, and people seem to be buying into it.  This question has never been polled but I suspect a majority of Americans believe that if we pull out of Iraq, and that it turns out to be a mistake, well, hell, we can just roll back in.

One of my arguments — one that everybody hates and shoots down — is this: If we hadn’t invaded, and had just waited for Saddam Hussein to die or be overthrown, the warfare between Shi’ite and Sunni militias would have commenced then. And Al Queda would have tried to capitalize on it, as would have Iran. The only way that could have been avoided was if Hussein had successfully gotten a nuclear weapon. Ex-CIA director George Tenet believes that probably would have happened between now and 2009.

So, the Iraq of 2008 would have either been in a state of bloody civil war and in danger of falling into the hands of Al Queda or Iran, or Hussein’s regime would have still been in place, equipped with a nuclear weapon to sustain his rule or the rule of his sons. And we would have been forced to deal with Iraq then, from an even less advantageous position than the one we have now — including, possibly, military action.

I have been told repeatedly this is a stupid argument. And maybe it is. But at least I now have the validation of being joined in my stupid argument by former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, the one-time presidential candidate who is now president of the New School in New York. In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal he restates the case for the war “from the U.S. point of view”:

The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were “over there.” It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the “head of the snake.” But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Okay, so far, all this does is put Kerrey in the same “wanker” category where netroots bloggers put Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman due to his robust support for the war. But then, Kerrey continues with this:

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq’s middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

He closes by saying that a U.S. withdrawal would hand Bin Laden an immense “psychological victory,” and carries his argument one step further with an insight I’ve not read anywhere else — a powerful refutation of those who say our invasion “created terrorists.”

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn’t have lasted a week.

Right.  The presence of democracy, and its desperate struggle to root itself in Iraqi soil:  That’s what’s drawn the brigades of poisonous wasps that are Islamists into Iraq.  Contrary to Rep. John Murtha’s assertions, if we leave, they won’t leave; not until they can kill secular-based self-government once and for all.  Optimally, they want an Islamist fundamentalist government.  But if that can’t be achieved, then any other option is better than a functioning democracy with a functioning civil society, because that’s a threat to the Islamist movement’s growth, worldwide.

The US is no longer in the business of installing friendly dictators — let’s hope. We’ve chosen a much harder path. It would have been nice if we’d taken that path without all the well-documented mistakes, but we should be proud we took it, and we need to stick to it.

Oh, hell, now I’m back in this debate again.

Two updates, or Why Bloggers are Better than Hack Journalists

1.  Could anything be more cliched than this?  Riffing off the same article about minimum-security prisons in The American that I wrote about here, a lazy-minded writer named Peter Carlson goes on autopilot and comes up with a column that soothes every liberal prejudice without engaging any of the issues honestly.  To get himself off — a vulgar way of putting it, I realize, but that’s the way the story feels — he is forced to recast Luke Mullins’ story as an apologia for rich, crooked CEOs by a magazine sponsored by a think-tank devoted to “the welfare of the rich.”

Missing the point entirely, Carlson apparently thinks the story was about this:

Now, white-collar miscreants are forced to mingle with common street-level dope dealers. And they have to work for seven hours a day — sometimes at jobs that are boring and unfulfilling and beneath them. And some of these former country clubs no longer have a tennis court — or even a bocce court! And inmates are forced to wear tacky prison garb instead of their stylish street clothes.

The horror! The horror!

Okay, Carlson, are you feeling better now?  Then why don’t you ponder for a minute or two why the “dope dealers” are in these prisons.  You have to put two and two together.  Minimum security prisons are reserved for non-violent federal felons.  Why are non-violent “dope dealers” doing federal time at all?  Obviously, you’re amused by the notion of white-collar convicts being forced to mix with them, but the “dope-dealers” are human, too — not just characters in your hack morality play.  Have you done any reading about the human consequences of the war on drugs? Didn’t think so.  

And while I’m sure you had a ball mocking the “high-class folks” now being warehoused at taxpayers’ expense, aren’t  you the least bit curious about how many of these supposed powerhouses of capitalism actually belong there — and how many of them are actually “rich?” 

Mullins didn’t interview any CEOs; my guess is because he didn’t run into any.  The way our system works now, the CEOs generally aren’t the prosecutors’ targets.  CEOs are too wealthy, too well-insulated and, if they were aware they were doing something wrong, they made sure not to get their hands dirty.  In a typical white collar case of the past five years, the ”higher-ups” work with the government to nail the “lower-downs,” which makes the government’s job so much easier. The feds get to look like they’re doing something important, while the stockholders interests are protected.

Obviously, I’m sensitive on this subject, but it burns me that a prestigious newspaper like the Washington Post publishes the writings of a pampered fool like Peter Carlson who, instead of doing any real thinking or reporting, just rolls out the creaky boxcars of received wisdom.   If it’s my fate to go to a minimum security prison in the near or distant future, it doesn’t scare me in the least; and I certainly don’t plan on going in with an attitude that I’m better than any of my fellow inmates.  But there’s a side of me — petty, to be sure — that wishes for the same fate for a Peter Carlson, a scribe who thinks he’s above everyone — CEO and “dope dealer” alike.  How long would that snarky smile last?  Measurable in seconds.

2.  It took her almost a week, but it was worth the wait:  Ann Althouse took a careful, Tivo-aided look at last Sunday’s episode of “The Sopranos,” the one in which Tony kills Christopher after a car accident.  It’s a tour de force, and I say that even though I disagree with her ultimate conclusion — that Tony is now dead.

I post these paragraphs just as a sample.  You should read all of it:

Carmela makes Tony a cup of coffee with that expensive expresso machine Paulie gave her in the April 22 episode. Tony says “It’s good.” At least something is good. They have a conversation that brings out the mother theme. (I note that Paulie’s aunt/mother Nucci also dies in this episode, and there’s a fair amount of childish whining by Paulie on the subject.) Carmela, crying over Christopher’s death, says that when Tony was in the hospital — back during that coma-dream — “It was Christopher who held me.” This mother-son image prompts Tony to bring up the baby seat in the SUV after the crash. It had a tree limb in it, so if the baby had been in the car, it would have been “mangled beyond recognition.” Carmela stomps off, and Tony is left holding out his empty arms toward her in a way that says this boy has no mother.

The following scene is Tony’s real session with Melfi, and he’s talking about mothering. He’s disgusted that Christopher’s mother is showing up now and soaking up all the sympathy, when she didn’t mother him well during his life. He says, “I hand carried him through the worse crisis he ever had.” “Hand carried” is an odd expression, but it conveys the image of a mother carrying a baby. Of course, it’s completely ridiculous for Tony to think he ought to be getting the sympathy when he’s the murderer. Tony thinks Chris was ungrateful, that his hand carrying only inspired hate. Well, yeah. It consisted of offing Adriana.

This sequence of mother-themed scenes culminates in a gathering of various mothers in the Soprano living room. Tony wanders out of his bedroom and looks down on them from the upstairs railing. Christopher’s baby is there. Christopher’s mother says: “She doesn’t know. Isn’t God wonderful that way?” Christopher’s wife pulls out her large breast and as the baby takes it, Tony snaps open the cell phone. He’s calling some guy in Las Vegas. “I need a suite.” The guy offers a plane too. Enough of the female. Bring on the phallic symbol. Escape from the family sphere into the realm of sin.

Why Not Just Make Everything a Crime?

As I said a few posts ago, it’s time for Americans to realize that our leaders have gone a bit jail-happy.  No better example than this, which I thought was from The Onion, but is, in fact, true, and is, in fact, supported conceptually by that bastion of liberalism, the motion picture industry. From C|NET News Blog:  

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including “attempts” to commit piracy.

“To meet the global challenges of IP crime, our criminal laws must be kept updated,” Gonzales said during a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Monday.

The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy.

(snip)

The IPPA would, for instance:

* Criminalize “attempting” to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place. The IPPA would eliminate that requirement. (The Justice Department’s summary of the legislation says: “It is a general tenet of the criminal law that those who attempt to commit a crime but do not complete it are as morally culpable as those who succeed in doing so.”)

* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who “recklessly causes or attempts to cause death” can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.

* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are “attempting” to infringe copyrights.

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC “intended to be used in any manner” to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture has become popular among police agencies in drug cases as a way to gain additional revenue, and it is problematic and controversial.

* Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anticircumvention regulations. Criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties.

* Add penalties for “intended” copyright crimes. Certain copyright crimes currently require someone to commit the “distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies” valued at more than $2,500. The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were “intended to consist of” distribution.

* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with “unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance” are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder, such as photographers, playwrights or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment.

A representative of the Motion Picture Association of America told us: “We appreciate the department’s commitment to intellectual-property protection and look forward to working with both the department and Congress as the process moves ahead.”

Wired’s Mathew Honan thinks Gonzalez’ bill “faces a tough haul in Congress.”  He reports:

Before the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 can even go to Congress, it will need to be sponsored by a member of the House or Senate. The Justice Department has yet to find a sponsor, although it’s hoping that a meeting with Hill staffers will flush one out. And while the DOJ claims to have bipartisan support for its bill, a similar measure introduced last year failed to make it to a vote.

“We’re still reviewing the bill, but based on our initial review, we have some concerns,” said Corynne McSherry, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “One of our biggest concerns is that it criminalizes attempted copyright infringement.”

McSherry said this is unprecedented in copyright law, and noted that the bill is ambiguous: “It’s not totally clear what would count as attempting copyright infringement.”

Essentially, the bill would turn copyright law into something more akin to existing drug laws: The government could seize personal property, wiretaps would become legal for the first time, violators could face life in prison and, in an ambiguous and far-reaching provision, the mere attempt to violate a copyright would become a crime.

Annalee Newitz from the Wired-affliliated blog Underwire says:

If this legislation becomes law, here are some things you could look forward to: 1-10 years in prison for attempting to engage in copyright infringement that would bring no profit to you (i.e., trying but failing to copy Doctor Who DVDs for your girlfriend); prison for life if you endangered someone by using pirated software (if a hospital got somebody’s medical records confused while using an infringing copy of Windows, for instance); being wiretapped by law enforcement investigating cases of attempted copyright infringement (now that your efforts to infringe Doctor Who DVDs for your girlfriend have been discovered, your cell phone has been tapped).

Sounds great, huh? But wait, there’s more. The IPPA promises enhanced sentencing for violating the DMCA, and will allow law enforcement to seize computers more easily. Buckle up, techno-wonks. It’s gonna be a rough ride if this bill makes it through Congress.

This is the problem with “get-tough” policies that allow politicians to posture against crime by lengthening prison sentences.   There’s always a constituency to “get tough” on white collar crime.  There’s always a constituency to “get tough” on drug dealers.  But once you’ve let the political community establish the “get-tough” precedent for unpopular sorts of non-violent crimes, then here’s what happens:  Well-connected big businesses are given a wide-open path to plead that actions they don’t like are crimes, too, and should get the same “get-tough” treatment. And as the unanimous bipartisan Senate vote for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act demonstrates, when business blows its horn, the politicians all come running.  

News from an “Unlikely Community”

Thanks to LA Biz Observed’s Mark Lacter for calling attention to this piece from the American Enterprise Institute’s “business magazine for people who think,” The American. 

It’s about prison, specifically the prison experience of white-collar felons, so of course I read every word twice.  The story analyzes recent trends in sentencing for white collar executives and business people convicted by the federal government of a wide assortment of crimes in which either a postage stamp (“mail fraud”) or an interstate communications line (“wire fraud”) was used.  Lacter linked to the story to make this point:

The days when white-collar prison sentences were a walk in the park – sometimes literally – are long gone….  These days, the minimum security facilities are becoming tougher, even more dangerous.

So, mind your p’s and q’s, Lacter wishes to warn would-be corporate criminals.  The days of golfing felons eating gourmet fare from Chasens are over.

Certainly, that’s one theme of Luke Mullins’ piece, entitled “Enter a ‘Hellish Place.’”  But there is much more to this expertly written, gripping narrative. First of all, it’s a story about two people, Alfred A. Porro, Jr. and his wife, Joan, both of them attorneys in New Jersey.  Porro rode a wave of success, working his way into a business partnership with NFL great Lawrence Taylor, but also someone criminal justice investigators had been investigating for years for things like conflict of interest and obstruction of justice.  But the case that ended up in his conviction and incarceration was nothing like that.

The thrust of the government’s case was that Joan Porro, then the executor of a trust that a former cli­ent had set up for his two children, had invested some funds from the trust in one of Al’s business ventures with Lawrence Taylor. Since documents regarding the investment were distributed by the U.S. Postal Service and did not disclose Al Porro’s stake, the Porros had committed mail fraud, the government contended.

At the meeting that morning, Carbone presented what Porro later called a tempting deal. The feds offered to reduce his potential punishment drasti­cally and to allow his wife to avoid prison altogether. But in return, the government wanted Al Porro’s tes­timony. He was to choose one person from a list of his former associates and provide testimony to sup­port the government’s case. (Through a spokesman at the U.S. Attorney’s office, Perry Carbone refused to comment on any of his dealings with Porro.)

Porro insists that the statements he was asked to make as a witness for the government were false. Still, the idea of keeping his wife out of jail was appealing. But it was Joan who convinced him to reject Carbone’s offer and fight the charges, Porro said.

Two years would pass before the case went to trial. “After more than a decade of fire-walking through state and federal investigations, Porro goes on trial today in federal court in Camden on wide-ranging fraud charges,” the Newark Star-Ledger said on January 12, 1999. The Porros represented them­selves in the nine-week trial and argued that the investment in the Porro/Taylor venture was in the best interest of the beneficiaries of the trust, who received a 10 percent return on their investment. Meanwhile, prosecutors inundated the jury with 2,000 pieces of evidence and 41 witnesses, includ­ing Lawrence Taylor himself.

On certain mornings, Porro was found kneel­ing in silent prayer before the judge’s bench in the empty courtroom. And just before the verdicts were returned, Porro’s family linked hands and sang “Amazing Grace” in the courthouse rotunda. But after three days of deliberation, the jury found both Al and Joan guilty on all 19 counts. Seven months later, a federal judge sentenced Al to nearly six years in prison, and Joan to nearly five. Calling the couple a flight risk, the judge had them taken into custody immediately.

This is the signal irony and characteristic of white-collar crime investigations.  The people who are really doing something wrong, and know they’re doing something wrong, are difficult to catch.  They cover their tracks from the first day of their scheme, knowing what a stray e-mail or document might mean to them.  White collar investigators don’t like cases like that.  Too hard, percentages not in their favor.  They hate to lose, and they know the public is watching. 

On the other hand, there are lots of people like Porro and his wife who, perhaps in good faith, make mistakes, or do things that, carefully sliced-and-diced away from all context, can be made to look like crimes to a jury already impressed by the government’s majesty.  People like that leave evidence all over the place, because they don’t believe they’ve done anything wrong, thus have nothing to hide.  To prosecutors who need to boost their batting average, cases like the Porros’ are a hanging curveball. 

Note also the escape hatch the Porros were allegedly offered: Help us convict someone else by saying what we want you to say about another investigatory target (statements Porro claimed would have been lies).  Implicitly, this is because the prosecutors didn’t have the goods against that target.   Why didn’t they have the goods?  Either the targets were too good at covering their tracks, or prosecutors knew no jury would find them guilty based on an honest presentation of evidence. So they had to cheat.

This was also interesting:

To Porro, the biggest initial surprise about life at Allenwood was the diversity of his fellow inmates. Most of the camp prisoners were not the rich white guys he had expected to see but poor African Americans and Hispanics—most of whom, Porro would soon learn, were drug offenders. “I was of the impression that the camps were primarily for white-collar criminals,” Porro said. “That’s just not the case.”

Despite widespread perceptions to the contrary, minimum-security prison camps are not reserved for former congressmen and CEOs. “People assume that you go to a prison surrounded by lawyers, doctors, and politicians,” said David Novak, a for­mer inmate who is now president of a consulting firm that prepares con­victs for prison life. “In fact, when you go to a camp, a full 70 percent of the other inmates are there as a direct result of the war on drugs.” In 1970, according to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, drug offenders made up just 16 percent of all federal prisoners, but by January 2007, the proportion had risen to 54 percent.

In part because of the increasing number of drug convictions, the federal prison system has expanded on a massive scale—from just 21,000 inmates in 1970 to 193,000 in 2007. As the system strug­gled to accommodate the ballooning population, many nonviolent drug offenders were sent to the camps. As a result, when new inmates like Porro arrive, they enter an unlikely community where the nation’s elite—professionals, politicians, corporate executives—live alongside the indigent foot soldiers of the drug trade.

“When you first get there, you’re a little apprehen­sive about mixing with the drug dealers, but then you learn that the drug dealers are a little appre­hensive about mixing with you,” said Fred Shapiro, a former attorney and accountant who defrauded a slew of Philadelphia-area financial institutions out of more than $8.5 million.

I’ll know in a week or two if I’m about to join an “unlikely community” up in Taft, CA.  Stay tuned. 

Stories like this are critical for anyone who works for a living to know, but they only tell half the story.  It’s easy to say “corporate criminals beware,” but not everyone serving time for white collar crime was aware they were doing something that anyone would call a crime.  How to avoid falling into that trap — how to be sure you won’t, even under the most politically charged circumstances — is a little too complicated for a slogan.  More on that sooner — or later.

Buyout Journalism Gets a Booooooo (or was that Ra-uuuuul?)

Here’s a brief item about the Dodgers from Wednesday’s LA Times. It’s by Bill Shaikin:

Former Dodgers outfielder Raul Mondesi attended Tuesday’s game. He was shown on the video board and roundly booed.

And here’s today’s follow-up, by Ben Bolch:

Raul Mondesi blistered Dodgers management in 1999, his last year with the team, and so boos would not have been unexpected when he appeared on the Dodger Stadium video board Tuesday.

But, after reading here Wednesday that Mondesi was “roundly booed,” several fans e-mailed to say they heard far more chants of “Ra-uuul!” than they did boos.

Reader Josh Abelson, seated near Mondesi at the game, said the former outfielder signed autographs for fans and posed for pictures. The “Ra-uuul!” chants traditionally greeted Mondesi during his career in L.A.

Any Dodger fan, or anyone knowledgable about the team ,would know Mondesi was not being booed.  The “Ra-uuuul” greeting developed because, for a few years, Mondesi was a thrilling player, an exciting combination of power, speed and — especially — aggressive defense.  The right fielder from the Dominican Republican dove and slid to get to balls, then leapt to his feet to fire dead-accurate throws to catch a runner.  He was rookie of the year in 1994, an All-Star in 1995, and hit over 30 home runs in each of his last three years with the team.

It’s true, in his final year with the club, he got into arguments with management and, as Vin Scully might say, “wore out his welcome.”  The fans surely noticed.  But who was Mondesi arguing with?  Who was this management he was “blistering?” The most despised ownership in the franchise’s LA history, Fox, that’s who.  Just a year earlier, Fox executives had traded away the game’s best catcher and the Dodgers’ most popular player, Mike Piazza.  Also in the management: A burned-out, sullen, past-his-prime manager, Davey Johnson.  A general manager, Kevin Malone, given to bizarre, empty boasts like “there’s a new sheriff in town.” 

It wasn’t as if Mondesi was getting in arguments with Sandy Koufax.  Dodger fans hated this management regime.

The 1999 season was especially infuriating–an expensive roster with a lot of imported stars that collectively stunk.  It seemed like the classy, smart Dodgers of memory had been taken over by alien replicants with horrible attitudes.  In a season so depressing, the fact that one of the players was throwing tantrums hardly stood out. But despite his unhappiness, Raul Mondesi didn’t quit.  He played 159 games, hit 33 home runs and 99 RBIs.  His strikeouts were up and his batting average was down, but he was still an above-average player.

There is no way the fans were booing Mondesi.  Just like they aren’t booing Bruce Springsteen when they yell “Brruuuuuuuuce.”   Any good player whose name rhymes with “oo” gets that cheer.  Lou Piniella.  Lou Brock. Vida Blue.  This is what all baseball fans do-oooooo. 

So, how could a Dodger beat writer have gotten it so wrong? 

I’m going to blame it on the buyouts at the LA Times.  The Times’ doesn’t post resumes for its staff writers (and why not? Most bloggers have an “about me” page, why should journalists be anonymous?), so I don’t know how old Shaikin is, or how long he’s been with the paper.  I also don’t know who edited the blurb, and how long they’ve been around.  So without help I can’t prove my assertion. 

But I think this is a small example of how the LA Times’ response to its circulation decline is making a bad situation worse.  Yes, veteran reporters can become arrogant, lazy, and out of touch, especially at the LA Times, which still retains a bit of the “velvet coffin” culture.  But at least they retain institutional memories.  There is more political insight in ex-Times reporter Bill Boyarsky’s occasional blog than in all the City Hall reporting of the past five years at the Times.

I’m not saying this to diss younger reporters.  I started out as a young reporter.  I showed up at a newspaper in New Jersey and, in my first week, was required to explain a decades-long sewer controversy that all my readers had been following since I was in intermediate school.   Smaller papers live on churning low-salaried eager young reporters who must constantly be reeducated.  But the LA Times isn’t supposed to be one of those papers.  The LA Times is supposed to know more than its readers about the major institutions in town, like the government, the biggest businesses, and the major league baseball team.

Using Copyright Law To Silence Critics

This story seems like a big deal, no?  

Universal Music Group has abandoned its attempt to silence syndicated conservative columnist Michelle Malkin for her online criticism of one of the label’s controversial artists, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said Monday.

Earlier this month, Universal filed a copyright notice regarding a recent episode of Malkin’s online video in which she called hip-hop star Akon a “misogynist.” She supported her claims with excerpts from his songs and video clips of him with a teenage girl at a Trinidad nightclub.

EFF said Malkin’s video, which was posted on YouTube, was legally protected “fair use” and fought a takedown notice from Universal on her behalf. The video has been put back online.

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl called the label’s copyright claim “bogus” and said the company misused a 2001 copyright law. “Shame on any copyright holder who would attempt to use the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] to intimidate and silence critics,” Malkin said in a statement.

Malkin, a shrill right-winger with a huge following, doesn’t fit the stereotype of Internet Hero; perhaps that’s why her case didn’t become the cause célèbre that, on the merits, it should be.  It’s chilling that a global media conglomerate would seek to use copyright law — the ill-advised Digital Millennium Copyright Act that Congress passed unanimously in 1998 — to deprive a critic of the weapon of quotation.  

In a piece comparing the Malkin case with a case involving gossip blogger Perez Hilton, FindLaw’s Julie Hilden sheds some light on the legal issues:

Granted, Malkin’s podcast may hurt the market for the Akon video if her listeners end up agreeing with her criticism. But what truly matters is that it’s extremely unlikely that any Akon fan will opt to watch only Malkin’s podcast in lieu of (not in addition to) watching Akon’s music videos or concert video themselves. A podcast criticizing a video is no substitute for the video itself, in the market; it doesn’t provide watchers with anything like the same experience, and thus doesn’t compete with the video itself.

(snip) 

The “fair use” factors are animated and informed by First Amendment concerns, and certainly, the kind of criticism Malkin is providing is strongly protected by the First Amendment. No wonder, then, that UMG backed off, and dropped its challenge.  

The whole thing’s worth reading.

Ironic, isn’t it?  UMG couldn’t make a dime off an obscene, degrading rapper like Akon without the Bill of Rights to protect them.  But the DMCA is like a termite infestation on the First Amendment — and the big media companies put it there.

Travels of Ace Smith

Well, this story certainly got my attention when it was linked by LA Observed today.  It’s all about a San Francisco political operative with the dubious distinction of being known as ”the best (opposition) research guy on either side of the aisle.”  

(Ace) Smith, 48, surprised California political veterans by jumping from the role of top political researcher to the role of campaign manager during Antonio Villaraigosa‘s successful 2005 run for mayor of Los Angeles against then-incumbent James Hahn.

Villaraigosa credits Smith with making the “biggest difference” in the campaign’s message in what became a landslide victory.

Hmm.  If you read a little further in the story, you find out what that “biggest difference” really amounted to.  

I will quote two words spoken by Tom Hanks’ character in “Saving Private Ryan”:  Earn this.  It better have been worth it.  I don’t want to hear about any more “setbacks” in education reform, especially not if I have to read about it in a prison cell.  No, I need to see a full-on Los Angeles renaissance.  Anything less and I have a right to be pissed.  

Elsewhere in the story, there’s a heartwarming yarn about why Smith decided to specialize in “opposition research.”

Smith’s education in politics began at the knee of his father, former San Francisco District Attorney Arlo Smith. He eventually gravitated toward unearthing devastating political information because the task allowed him to work for campaigns but be at home with his family — wife Laura Talmus, a community and political fundraiser, and children Abram and Lili, now 15 and 13.

You can imagine how happy that makes me feel.   Smith’s life is a perfect combination of “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet” and “Thank You for Smoking.”  In fact, what a great idea for a new reality show. 

The point of the SF Chronicle story was that Smith is bringing his “devastating” talents to help the presidential campaign of Hilary Rodham Clinton.  Perfect.  

I’m re-reading The Great Gatsby.  I’m not at the end yet, but I know I’ll eventually come across this famous quote:

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

It’s not precisely applicable.  You really can’t say Ace Smith and his candidate made “a mess.”  They won.

“Kennedy and Heidi,” and Chris-ta-fah, R.I.P.

Last night’s “Sopranos” episode cinches it for me.  The baby-boom generation has finally produced its Great American Novel, and this is it. 

More than any novel or movie I can think of, “The Sopranos” is an honest, faithful reflection of the heart of American culture.  It’s about everything we’ve learned and lost growing up with the H-bomb, the Cold War, the assassinations, the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, Watergate, the Iranian hostage crisis, Ronald Reagan, Woodstock, drugs, TV, classic rock, yuppie consumer culture, New Age, Prozac, the dot-com bubble, Bill Clinton, global trade, 9/11 — all of that and probably more. “The Sopranos” has no detectable political agenda, but it speaks eloquently to the corruption that has seeped into all our relationships, our business dealings, our culture, our consciousness. 

The brilliant irony of how Christopher Moltisanti met his maker!  Sure, Tony delivered the coup de grâce, strangling him by pinching his nose after the accident.  But the accident was caused by two seemingly nice, decent girls driving a late model car, who preferred to let the unknown victims of a horrible accident die than risk what would have been a minor sanction against their driving privileges.  We have grown to loathe and fear the moral relativism of Tony and his crew as they justify dozens of murders and ruined lives. But what Chase is saying here is that, under the right circumstances, Tony’s ethics are everyone’s, including our children’s.

Like our country’s greatest writer, William Faulkner (whose stories seldom left a small fictional region of Mississippi called Yoknapatawpha County) David Chase and his writing crew display America through the eyes of a geographic sub-culture, New Jersey Italian-American criminals. ”The Sopranos” gets a lot of its comedy from putting our culture’s evasive buzzwords in the mouths of these thugs.  Like this exchange from Season 5:

Tony Blundetto: It’s hard to believe. My cousin in the old man’s seat.
Paulie ‘Walnuts’ Gualtieri: It’s like “Sun-Tuh-Zoo” says: a good leader is benevolent and unconcerned with fame.
Tony Blundetto: What?
Paulie ‘Walnuts’ Gualtieri: “Sun-Tuh-Zoo”. He’s Chinese Prince Matchabelli.
Silvio Dante: “Zoo”! “Zoo”! “Sun-Zoo”, you fucking ass-kiss!

It helps if you’re old enough to remember that Prince Matchabelli was the name of a perfume company that advertised on TV a lot in the 1960s.  Paulie was not the first to mix that name up with Machiavelli’s “The Prince.”  But what really makes it funny is the idea of mobsters elevating themselves by citing Sun-Tzu, a chic cite for all enlightened corporate executives. 

Again and again, Chase has rubbed our faces in the sheer evil and vulgarity of Tony Soprano and his associates, through some of the most violent and ugly scenes ever depicted.  Then he shows just how well Tony fits into the upper-class milieu –worrying about his kids, enjoying sushi, engaging in comforting nostalgia about his ethnic roots and, of course, medicating himself under a psychiatrist’s direction.  He’s just another executive who made it to the top of his chosen profession.  He has what so many Americans have, and what most Americans want.  Was his rise to the top that much dirtier than others who are lauded by our culture? 

It’s a horrible question, an insulting question.  But that’s what Chase has been asking through 83 episodes of “The Sopranos,” never more starkly than last night.  For all our ideals and pretensions–and our hallucinations of enlightenment–are we baby boomers so sure we haven’t passed the ethics of sheer expediency onto our children?  

Waiting Waiting Waiting

Two of my brothers and I took our mother to Mother’s Day brunch yesterday.  (She actually found the place and made the reservation, which is kind of embarrassing. What’s wrong with us?)

The restaurant offered, among other things, a creme brulee French toast as part of a buffet that also included omelets, lox and bagels, a salmon covered with thin cucumber slices arranged to look like scales, various fruit and vegetable salads and a flowing chocolate fountain into which you could dip ripe, sweet strawberries, banana slices, marshmallows and profiteroles — little bubbles of pastry filled with whipped cream. 

There was a barista, and thanks to her I got my mom her first mocha latte, ever. This barista told me she usually works catering jobs, and for a certain generation of coffee drinkers, she provides their first exposure to espresso beverages.  Apparently, not everyone has been inside a Starbucks.  

Along with my two brothers, my son was there, my father, and one of my brothers brought his girlfriend.  We talked about movies, books, TV, news, the difference between MySpace and Facebook, what my parents’ doctors say, what we each had the omelet chef mix into our omelets.  My son is disgusted that I like feta cheese.   My brother’s girlfriend is very thin, but prefers egg-whites only omelets anyway. We gave my mother gifts and discussed each one as she unwrapped them. 

We talked about everything we usually talk about when we get together as a family.  The only topic we avoided was the fact that I might be going to prison in a few weeks.

I say “might be.”  This is because my surrender date has been postponed until the 9th Circuit Appeals Court rules on my request to be free on bail until the appeal is resolved.  Various procedural issues have stretched out this process.  It would seem automatic that bail would be granted pending an appeal, in the event that the appellant wins.  It would seem to me you would need a very good reason to incarcerate someone whose conviction might later be overturned; a history of violence, or a motive to flee the jurisdiction of the United States.  But the system doesn’t always work that way.

Indictment was bizarre.  To see the awesome might of the most powerful government that ever existed aimed at you is like being chased by a grizzly bear. The trial was a battle, albeit on a tilted battleground.  The period after the trial, as I waited for rulings on the motions to overturn the verdict, was one of anger and the kind of helplessness you feel when you’re yelling and no one can hear you. 

But as bad as all of that was, this period — the waiting — is the worst.  Maybe it’s because of the accumulated weight of all that has come before.  I can’t honestly say I’d prefer for it to be resolved, if the resolution entails my surrender.  I look at my wife and son, my job, my parents and my home, and freak out about leaving them all behind; freak out about the chaos my departure will inflict.  But then I stop myself and think: “I’m not going anywhere.  Not now. Not ever. What’s supposed to happen is what will happen — and I don’t belong in prison.”

Over brunch, one of my brothers whipped out his Blackberry to show me a story in LA Weekly about the premier LA blogger, Kevin Roderick.  Kevin was kind enough to mention me to the writer, and the writer, Ella Taylor (whose film reviews I remember enjoying on KPCC) was kind enough to include the mention.  And I immediately felt a little sheepish.  Despite what Kevin says, I know this blog hasn’t been as interesting lately. 

The waiting is taking a toll on my psychic energy.  To be a great blogger, you have to be passionately interested in what you’re writing about.  You have to constantly be saying ”Hey!” to yourself about something you stumbled across, or a thought that came to you. You have to be zealous about sharing it.  This waiting has made me more apathetic than I’ve been in a long time about things in the news, politics, issues, whatever. 

The presidential debates sound to me like the same yada-yada that all politicians use to rationalize the careless destruction of lives.  I got momentarily stimulated by Elliot Mintz’ yo-yo act with Paris Hilton, but I had to fight a kind of vertigo in order to write those posts.   I had to admit, I join Paris and her entourage in their outrage about the judge’s vindictive showboating.    At the same time, if you spend an hour or two on Prison Talk, and you read post after post of heartbreak, tragedy–and quite often, intractable injustice–you hate yourself for sympathizing with Paris. Or with me.  The worst that can happen to either one of us would equate to a miraculous turnaround for the hundreds of thousands of Americans trapped in the system. Nearly two million people woke up this morning incarcerated somewhere in America.  If only five percent are there wrongly – and do you doubt it’s at least five percent? — that’s 100,000 people.

Politics in this country has gone absolutely jail-happy, and the results of all these wildly popular “throw ‘em in jail” policies get virtually no attention.  Where are you, reporters?  Why aren’t you reading Prison Talk, and running down stories about lives ruined to satisfy the ambitions of politicians, cops, prosecutors and judges?  Why aren’t you looking harder at what happens inside those prisons?   

Just now, it’s hard to write about the kinds of things that initially attracted Kevin and probably others to this blog.  All I can get excited about are the small, good things we are given in the course of our daily lives, if we’re lucky.  A barbecue with friends.  A surprise invitation to see “Porgy and Bess.”  My wife making us scallops.  My son singing a solo in his school musical. Our dog dancing on his hind legs. A blue sky, or a gray one.  A re-release of a long-lost Warren Zevon album.  A Dodger rally.  The way your lungs seem to expand after working out.  Just being with people I love, like I was all day Sunday.

Somehow, through the grace of some evolutionary survival tactic, when we see the walls closing in on us, we’re able to enjoy those small, good things in the most uncomplicated, clear-headed way, without even trying to multi-task. Knowing it could be taken away makes you just want to take a bath in these moments.  If I do end up in prison, I’ll pass some of the time replaying these moments in my mind in detail, and I don’t want to miss any of them.

So if my next few blog entries seem a bit more personal and a bit more trivial, that’s where my head is now.  The news about my bail situation will come when it comes.  Waiting can throw you off the rhythm of your life, and that’s uncomfortable, but at least I’m still at the dance.

Elliot Mintz Mulling a Return Ticket to Hell

According to a gossip columnist on E! Online, Elliot Mintz is now describing his fond farewell to Paris Hilton as “a bit premature.” 

…today (Mintz) tells me he is “very optimistic” that the two will reunite. 

“We had a telephone conversation last night,” Mintz said. “It was a good and healthy exchange. We are having dinner tonight…I think the world of her.”

Okay, I’m done with this story. 

For a minute there, Elliot M. had a nice glow.  The timing for a fade-out was good; followed perhaps by a memoir.  The difference between then and now… John Lennon’s message of imagining peace in the Vietnam era, versus Paris Hilton’s message of empty-headed glitz in the Iraq/Al-Queda era… And yet, the ties that bind, the synchronicity!  John & Yoko, exposing their genitals on an album cover.  Paris, exposing hers pretty much everywhere. 

It could have had an existential quality. He could have helped us make sense of his strange journey.  But it turns out that glow was just a tanning salon malfunction. 

Now Mintz is getting pathetic. What’s he going to do, camp out in front of the jail? ”Today, Paris continued her hunger strike. She is insisting on a licensed pedicurist, and she refuses to eat any more mashed potatoes until her rights are respected.”

Elliot… Walk toward the light… Walk toward the light… 

UPDATE:  It’s official.  Per Mintz:

I shall continue to respect and support her as her media rep and friend.

And Paris Hilton is just a great friend.

Elliot Mintz Falls on His Sword, Escapes in Two Pieces

I’m sure this is not the first place you’ve seen the news that Elliot Mintz has parted company with Paris Hilton and her family, in the wake of his disastrous, failed attempt to take the blame for her probation violation.  For giving this testimony, he was rebuked by Superior Court Judge Michael Sauer, who all but called him a liar. 

Which also meant Paris Hilton was, in the judge’s eyes, a liar, because she testified she relied on Mintz’ shaky grasp of the law before deciding whether to get behind the wheel with her suspended license.  Combined with Hilton showing up to court 10 minutes late–an offense that by itself can get you a night behind bars–her lack of credibility earned her a 45 day sentence in an especially scary jail. 

To Mintz, Hilton’s sentence was The Call.  Like the general of a failed army, like a CIA spy caught behind enemy lines by the Russkies, like a samurai warrior following his master into the Next World, Elliot Mintz was required by the unwritten code of public relations to commit ritual suicide — figuratively, of course, via an apology.  His words do contain echoes of another time, when honor mattered:

“The day after the hearing, I sent Paris an e-mail expressing my sadness over the ruling of the judge and the irrational sentence he imposed.”

(snip)
“In that e-mail [to Paris],” Mintz said in his message to PEOPLE, “I also offered my sincerest apology for any misunderstanding she received from me regarding the terms of her probation. To the extent that I have miscommunicated information I received from her attorneys … I am deeply and profoundly sorry.”

He added, “I told her that I assume personal responsibility for my part in this matter.”

The message continues: “I believe when Paris stated in court that she believed it was o.k. for her to drive under certain circumstances she was being absolutely truthful.

“Due to this misunderstanding, I am no longer representing Paris.”

He concludes, “For the record, I have nothing but love and respect for Paris and her family. Paris is a wonderful person and does not deserve the punishment that was handed down by the court. I only wish her my best.”

He might have gone on to say:

But I’ve got a job to do, too. Where I’m going, you can’t follow. What I’ve got to do, you can’t be any part of. Ilsa, I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you’ll understand that. Now, now… Here’s looking at you kid. 

But she probably wouldn’t have gotten the reference.  Oh well.  Such is life for a 62-year-old man who once helped John & Yoko turn on the world, but will forever be remembered* for his post-midnight drive to a hospital to tell Paris Hilton what to say about her monkey.  

Elliot Mintz is now a free man**, which is more than I can say for the rest of us, still forced to watch this cipher’s endless and inescapable reality show.  Unlike Mintz, we’ll always have Paris.

*Times Select, subscription required.

** Not so fast. 

“If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.”

No, that quote isn’t from President Bush’s press statement today.  And it’s certainly not from Harry Reid.

It’s Digg.com’s founder Kevin Rose, forecasting possible doom for his high-profile Web 2.0 site over its decision to rescind an earlier decision to pull all posts that featured an HD-DVD hack:

In building and shaping the site I’ve always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.

But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.

If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.

The “bigger company” to which he refers is a video licensing authority that enforces copyrights on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs — the Advanced Access Content System consortium, which was working with the Motion Picture Association of America.  They sent cease and desist notes to other websites where the code was posted, including Google.  For a time yesterday, some of the sites complied.

Imagine a flood.  Imagine you want to stop the flood.  Imagine throwing seven pebbles into the flood and waiting for it to stop.

This from TG Daily:

Copies of the cease and desist letters started appearing on the web yesterday and as we’ve seen in so many previous cases it was “Game On!” for the hackers.  The processing key in its full hexadecimal glory  sprouted like a weed all over the Internet.  Users of popular websites like Digg and Slashdot thumbed their virtual noses at the MPAA by posting the key into the comments sections, often using decimal, binary and other permutations.  Some users have also been creative enough to make up a shopping list using the numbers, 9 oranges, 9 fruits, etc.

The leaking of the HD DVD processing key isn’t a complete doomsday for the high-definition movie industry because the key only affects some players and presumably the movie companies could push updates that would prevent copied movies from playing.

This might sound very familiar.  Some years back, when I was in PR, MPAA was a client, and our assignment was to support its litigation to stop spread of a DVD copy-protection code hack — the famous DeCSS.  Only a three or four sites existed then that would post the hack, but I was told there were kids walking around New York City with the hack code printed on their t-shirts.  Now…fuhgeddaboutit.

Imagine if you really wanted to stop this flood.  What would you use?  That’s what should  really worry us.  What kind of bill are the copyright owners’ lobbyists writing now to reflect this new world?