Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Leave Public Broadcasting to Public Broadcasters
Show Me the Convention
Television Programming for the night of Monday, 8/31/04:
ABC: football
CBS: sitcoms, CSI, Convention Coverage 10-11 pm
NBC: reality shows
CNN: Larry King, interspersed with convention coverage
FOX News: O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes
PBS: Convention Coverage, 8-12 pm
Perhaps Mr. Copps has one of those old fashioned TVs that only gets three channels, but I watched the convention for nearly five hours on publicly funded, publicly run PBS last night. It required no cable hookup and no special equipment. And I didn't have to listen to grating commentary. Sounds like the public airwaves are working exactly as they were meant to: government-run broadcasting for government affairs, leaving commercial broadcasters free to show what people really want to watch: "Fear Factor".
I agree that it's a shame that most people don't know or care about local politics. However, it seems to me that a big part of the reason for that is that most of the biggest decisions about how our lives will be governed are no longer made at the local level. People don't pay attention to elections that matter, much less elections they feel have almost no impact on their lives. I somehow doubt that federal mandates about how often CBS has to pre-empt "Survivor: Vanuatu" to show city council meetings will reassure people that local government is important. If Copps wants people to focus on local elections, he should advocate for increased decision-making power for local governments.
||1:54 PM || |
Show Me the Convention
Television Programming for the night of Monday, 8/31/04:
ABC: football
CBS: sitcoms, CSI, Convention Coverage 10-11 pm
NBC: reality shows
CNN: Larry King, interspersed with convention coverage
FOX News: O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes
PBS: Convention Coverage, 8-12 pm
Perhaps Mr. Copps has one of those old fashioned TVs that only gets three channels, but I watched the convention for nearly five hours on publicly funded, publicly run PBS last night. It required no cable hookup and no special equipment. And I didn't have to listen to grating commentary. Sounds like the public airwaves are working exactly as they were meant to: government-run broadcasting for government affairs, leaving commercial broadcasters free to show what people really want to watch: "Fear Factor".
I agree that it's a shame that most people don't know or care about local politics. However, it seems to me that a big part of the reason for that is that most of the biggest decisions about how our lives will be governed are no longer made at the local level. People don't pay attention to elections that matter, much less elections they feel have almost no impact on their lives. I somehow doubt that federal mandates about how often CBS has to pre-empt "Survivor: Vanuatu" to show city council meetings will reassure people that local government is important. If Copps wants people to focus on local elections, he should advocate for increased decision-making power for local governments.
||1:54 PM || |
Speechifying
Speeches at the Republican National Convention
A few things really struck me about last night's speeches. The first is that our politicians don't seem to understand the way that public speaking works. When your words begin to get the crowd worked up, cheering and clapping and waving signs, the correct response is not to stop speaking and stand there looking uncomfortable until the applause has died down. I was disappointed in McCain, especially, for his seeming inability to ride with the enthusiasm of the crowd, and his third-grade-teacher-like insistence on not speaking until the room was quiet and calm. That's not the way you envigorate your base, and it's certainly not the way that you convince skeptics that your ideas are important and worth listening to. Even at the end, what should have been the crescendo of his speech, McCain paused for eons to wait for the crowd to stop being so excited about what he was saying so that he could finish what he was saying. Mr. McCain, in a room wired with every type of sound equipment imaginable, I assure you that people can cheer and listen to your platitudes at the same time.
Substantively, I was angry at the blatant exploitation of 9/11. I ended up not watching most of the tributes because while it was touching to listen to a young widow talk about her brave husband's sacrifice, it sickened me to watch her try to use that sacrifice to advance one idiot politician over the other. The speakers kept talking about how 9/11 was important in bringing America together, no matter what our politics, and it made me mad to see them immediately turn around and try to put their own political stamp on it. Not that I wasn't expecting that to happen, but I was still angry.
This remark from Giuliani bothered me too:
Watching this crap last night did a pretty good job of putting me to sleep, and I'm thinking I may revert back to my former policy of eschewing TV coverage in favor of reading the text of the speeches the next day. The words are often pretty, but the delivery is rarely worth my time.
||11:45 AM || |
Speeches at the Republican National Convention
A few things really struck me about last night's speeches. The first is that our politicians don't seem to understand the way that public speaking works. When your words begin to get the crowd worked up, cheering and clapping and waving signs, the correct response is not to stop speaking and stand there looking uncomfortable until the applause has died down. I was disappointed in McCain, especially, for his seeming inability to ride with the enthusiasm of the crowd, and his third-grade-teacher-like insistence on not speaking until the room was quiet and calm. That's not the way you envigorate your base, and it's certainly not the way that you convince skeptics that your ideas are important and worth listening to. Even at the end, what should have been the crescendo of his speech, McCain paused for eons to wait for the crowd to stop being so excited about what he was saying so that he could finish what he was saying. Mr. McCain, in a room wired with every type of sound equipment imaginable, I assure you that people can cheer and listen to your platitudes at the same time.
Substantively, I was angry at the blatant exploitation of 9/11. I ended up not watching most of the tributes because while it was touching to listen to a young widow talk about her brave husband's sacrifice, it sickened me to watch her try to use that sacrifice to advance one idiot politician over the other. The speakers kept talking about how 9/11 was important in bringing America together, no matter what our politics, and it made me mad to see them immediately turn around and try to put their own political stamp on it. Not that I wasn't expecting that to happen, but I was still angry.
This remark from Giuliani bothered me too:
"Before Sept. 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of our world much like observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate the Soviet Union through the use of mutually assured destruction.He praised Reagan for, among other things, his handling of the Cold War. Then he procedes to call the mutually assured destruction policies of the Cold War, the very same policies that allowed Reagan to beat the Kremlin at its own game, "unrealistic." Well, which is it? Did avoiding nuclear war and using diplomacy and civic engagement to oust "the evil empire" make Reagan a hero, or did it make him naive? I'm all for fighting when it is necessary to fend off a direct threat to safety and freedom, but one of the reasons that Reagan is such a hero is that he managed to end the Cold War without sending thousands of troops out to get shot by our enemies. Instead, while ensuring our ability to protect ourselves at home, he reached out to the people living under the oppressive Soviet regime and made it known to them that they too could have freedom, and that if they would demand it, we would help them. Obviously, the current terrorist threats aren't the same as the government of the USSR in form, but they have the same purpose: to unite large swaths of the world under an oppressive, ideologically homogenous government. And there's no reason to believe that invading second-rate dictatorships will prevent that from happening. Sometimes, the best defense is just a good defense, and it seems odd to me to try to justify an offensive (in the sense of "on the offense," not "causing offense," although I guess it depends on your perspective) strategy by invoking a war we won by playing the best defense.
President Bush decided that we could no longer just be on defense against global terrorism we must also be on offense. On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he changed the direction of our ship of state. He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism."
Watching this crap last night did a pretty good job of putting me to sleep, and I'm thinking I may revert back to my former policy of eschewing TV coverage in favor of reading the text of the speeches the next day. The words are often pretty, but the delivery is rarely worth my time.
||11:45 AM || |
When the Terrorists are Right
Press steps up support for hostages
It is obvious to me that the French government is infringing on its schoolchildren's freedom of conscience in demanding that religious adherents remove the accoutrements of their faith before entering public schools tomorrow. However, it is equally obvious that giving in to the the demands of terrorists is a bad idea because it would prove that threats and violence are capable of achieving political results. That's a precedent we don't want set. So I'm of two minds about what the French should do now.
It appears overwhelmingly likely that when the French public schools open for the year tomorrow, the ban will still be in place. Its key supporters are even using the hostage situation as evidence that religion is divisive and that its inclusion in public life will inevitably lead to violence and strife. Their logic is, of course, flawed, akin to claiming that racial equality causes violence because some militants have used violent means to agitate for equal rights. But the point is that the French government is not likely to reconsider its stance on the matter under threat of terrorism. If anything, the hostage situation seems to be strengthening their resolve to keep Islam out of French public life, no matter what the cost.
Forcing children to choose between education that is supposed to be their birthright and the dictates of their religious and moral codes is abhorrent. Whether learning to read is worth risking punishment from their God is not a decision that people, especially children, should have to make. The French government has a responsibility to protect schoolchildren from violence and harassment while they are in school, and telling them that they should give up their beliefs so as not to antagonize the majority is an abdication of those rights.
If I were a public school student in France, I would wear a headscarf to school tomorrow. I'm not Muslim, and a scarf would not be a signal of my religious affiliation, so paradoxically, it wouldn't be covered under the law. Only French students required by their religions to cover their hair are forbidden from doing so, as far as I can tell. It would be a beautiful thing if school started tomorrow with Christian students wearing the hijab, Jewish students wearing crosses, and Muslim students in skullcaps, just to show the absurdity of setting dress codes based on one's perceived belief system. But instead, my guess is that the ban will continue, the journalists will die, and thousands of Muslims--particularly girls, who have been traditionally kept from education and opportunity--will withdraw from public life in order to keep their faith. This ban may make French society less divisive, but it will not improve life there, and it certainly will not respect the rights of French citizens to liberty, equality, and brotherhood.
||11:01 AM || |
Press steps up support for hostages
It is obvious to me that the French government is infringing on its schoolchildren's freedom of conscience in demanding that religious adherents remove the accoutrements of their faith before entering public schools tomorrow. However, it is equally obvious that giving in to the the demands of terrorists is a bad idea because it would prove that threats and violence are capable of achieving political results. That's a precedent we don't want set. So I'm of two minds about what the French should do now.
It appears overwhelmingly likely that when the French public schools open for the year tomorrow, the ban will still be in place. Its key supporters are even using the hostage situation as evidence that religion is divisive and that its inclusion in public life will inevitably lead to violence and strife. Their logic is, of course, flawed, akin to claiming that racial equality causes violence because some militants have used violent means to agitate for equal rights. But the point is that the French government is not likely to reconsider its stance on the matter under threat of terrorism. If anything, the hostage situation seems to be strengthening their resolve to keep Islam out of French public life, no matter what the cost.
Forcing children to choose between education that is supposed to be their birthright and the dictates of their religious and moral codes is abhorrent. Whether learning to read is worth risking punishment from their God is not a decision that people, especially children, should have to make. The French government has a responsibility to protect schoolchildren from violence and harassment while they are in school, and telling them that they should give up their beliefs so as not to antagonize the majority is an abdication of those rights.
If I were a public school student in France, I would wear a headscarf to school tomorrow. I'm not Muslim, and a scarf would not be a signal of my religious affiliation, so paradoxically, it wouldn't be covered under the law. Only French students required by their religions to cover their hair are forbidden from doing so, as far as I can tell. It would be a beautiful thing if school started tomorrow with Christian students wearing the hijab, Jewish students wearing crosses, and Muslim students in skullcaps, just to show the absurdity of setting dress codes based on one's perceived belief system. But instead, my guess is that the ban will continue, the journalists will die, and thousands of Muslims--particularly girls, who have been traditionally kept from education and opportunity--will withdraw from public life in order to keep their faith. This ban may make French society less divisive, but it will not improve life there, and it certainly will not respect the rights of French citizens to liberty, equality, and brotherhood.
||11:01 AM || |
Monday, August 30, 2004
It Could Be Worse
Karol Sheinin asked a representative of the Bush administration how Bush plans to appeal to Republicans who are angry at him for going against conservative ideals on issues like campaign finance reform, Medicare, government spending, and immigration. The response? Hey, at least he's not the other guy.
And we wonder why half the country doesn't feel compelled to come out and vote...
||3:21 PM || |
Karol Sheinin asked a representative of the Bush administration how Bush plans to appeal to Republicans who are angry at him for going against conservative ideals on issues like campaign finance reform, Medicare, government spending, and immigration. The response? Hey, at least he's not the other guy.
And we wonder why half the country doesn't feel compelled to come out and vote...
||3:21 PM || |
Dispatches From the Field
Following is a selection of text messages I've gotten from indymedia and other protest organizers and watchers over the last few days. I make no claims about the veracity of any of these statements:
||9:43 AM || |
Following is a selection of text messages I've gotten from indymedia and other protest organizers and watchers over the last few days. I make no claims about the veracity of any of these statements:
12:54:08 Fri, Aug 27 Police are under orders to arrest any demonstrator in possession of a slingshot, or surgical tubing.(Thanks to Julian for introducing me to TxtMob.)
14:34:56 Fri, Aug 27 where can one get a gas mask?
16:41:55 Fri, Aug 27 Gasmasks can be obtained at any Army-navy surplus. Beware NY laws regarding masks tho.
01:48:52 Sat, Aug 28 nypd: 264 arrests, incl. 7 indy journalists (1 released). arraignments start at 6am at 100 centre st.
14:54:54 Sun, Aug 29 Major wave of RIOT pigs enroute to protest site, arrest vehicles rolling, something is up.
14:57:56 Sun, Aug 29 Police radio call, telling pigs to check their gas mask filters and secure body armor.
15:00:26 Sun, Aug 29 Around 800 more riot cops enroute to great lawn. Police are in panic mode, crowd too large
15:01:48 Sun, Aug 29 goddamned blackbloc just set the dragon on fire; march halted @ MSG; NYPD&NYFD; put fire out
15:03:36 Sun, Aug 29 Police told over radios to beware of protester throwing blood products, beware of red liquids in cups
15:13:04 Sun, Aug 29 Pigs just arrested two journalists outside MSG after they refuse to stop shooting video of cops hassling folks
16:14:56 Sun, Aug 29 Kiss-in in progress! 5Ave @ 41 on the steps of the library
17:01:17 Sun, Aug 29 300 people at 45th and broadway; police about to arrest | meanwhile, Great Lawn is packed and festive
17:57:12 Sun, Aug 29 Police using huge orange nets to arrest people, bewae of what looks like orange plastic fence material
17:59:11 Sun, Aug 29 150-200 people have been arrested in Times Square, over a dozen beaten badly by police, bleeding badly
18:13:52 Sun, Aug 29 Media needed at 47th and 8th to document arrests
19:20:33 Sun, Aug 29 Police radio call warns officers that Rioting will likely start after nighfall.
19:40:47 Sun, Aug 29 Secret Service just pulled disabled double amputee out of his wheelchair, he is being beaten by pigs
19:59:23 Sun, Aug 29 YOU are our only reporters right now. You are PIONEERS. STAY ALIVE. and be specific.
20:43:21 Sun, Aug 29 jail solidarity demonstrators about to be arrested at pier 57. call dispatch for / with updates
09:23:14 Mon, Aug 30 National Lawyers Guild emergency press conference today 10AM at the Criminal Courthouse at 100 Centre St.
09:50:59 Mon, Aug 30 Be on the lookout for guys in dolphin suits. They are paid repub staffers that are supposed to hound Democrats
||9:43 AM || |
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Life Goes On
What always strikes me most about huge gatherings like the ones we're seeing in NYC right now is just how normal things are otherwise. In Central Park right now, thousands of police officers are attempting to keep more thousands of protesters in line. Police at Times Square are using giant orange nets to corral protesters and arrest them for gathering and demonstrating outside of the authorized "free speech zones." There have been reports of police violence and of harassment of members of the media attempting to document police action. And yet, a few blocks away from each of those hotspots, New Yorkers are playing frisbee, doing their shopping, and griping about the influx of outsiders. Business as usual, I suppose.
I spoke this afternoon with a few people from a 9/11 victims' group exiting Central Park around 4:00 because they were told by police that they couldn't bring their large signs and banners onto the lawn. So they decided to ride down 77th St. It was a small group, mostly the same sorts of folks we've been seeing on C-SPAN and in photos coming out of downtown all afternoon. They believe Bush is hurting the country, and that the Republican party doesn't have the best interests of the country at heart. Many of them seem not to be able to explicate their views any more coherently than shouting "Bush Lied, People Died!" But this group made the specific point that Bush is exploiting New York, and that the government can't simultaneously claim to be looking out for our best interests and refusing to let us freely express what those interests are. I'm not sure I agree that the police are out of line. After all, those of us who have to live here deserve to be able to leave our homes this week without feeling we're about to be swept up in chaos. In a crowd this size, there are bound to be extremists who break the law, and there are bound to be innocent people who get swept up in attempts to curb the violence. I have yet to hear any reports of deliberate, eggregious police violence. Still, it's appalling that the city believes it has the duty or the ability to keep people from gathering throughout the city to protest. Still, perhaps that's why things are so remarkably normal in most parts of the city.
||6:31 PM || |
What always strikes me most about huge gatherings like the ones we're seeing in NYC right now is just how normal things are otherwise. In Central Park right now, thousands of police officers are attempting to keep more thousands of protesters in line. Police at Times Square are using giant orange nets to corral protesters and arrest them for gathering and demonstrating outside of the authorized "free speech zones." There have been reports of police violence and of harassment of members of the media attempting to document police action. And yet, a few blocks away from each of those hotspots, New Yorkers are playing frisbee, doing their shopping, and griping about the influx of outsiders. Business as usual, I suppose.
I spoke this afternoon with a few people from a 9/11 victims' group exiting Central Park around 4:00 because they were told by police that they couldn't bring their large signs and banners onto the lawn. So they decided to ride down 77th St. It was a small group, mostly the same sorts of folks we've been seeing on C-SPAN and in photos coming out of downtown all afternoon. They believe Bush is hurting the country, and that the Republican party doesn't have the best interests of the country at heart. Many of them seem not to be able to explicate their views any more coherently than shouting "Bush Lied, People Died!" But this group made the specific point that Bush is exploiting New York, and that the government can't simultaneously claim to be looking out for our best interests and refusing to let us freely express what those interests are. I'm not sure I agree that the police are out of line. After all, those of us who have to live here deserve to be able to leave our homes this week without feeling we're about to be swept up in chaos. In a crowd this size, there are bound to be extremists who break the law, and there are bound to be innocent people who get swept up in attempts to curb the violence. I have yet to hear any reports of deliberate, eggregious police violence. Still, it's appalling that the city believes it has the duty or the ability to keep people from gathering throughout the city to protest. Still, perhaps that's why things are so remarkably normal in most parts of the city.
||6:31 PM || |
Perspective
There are definitely people fleeing New York this week for fear that violence will break out. There are those who fear that the election this fall won't change enough about the way this country is governed. There are those who believe our democracy is in jeopardy. But still, there are little reminders that it could always be worse.
||3:54 AM || |
There are definitely people fleeing New York this week for fear that violence will break out. There are those who fear that the election this fall won't change enough about the way this country is governed. There are those who believe our democracy is in jeopardy. But still, there are little reminders that it could always be worse.
||3:54 AM || |
Misinformation
Someone attacked Secret Service officers in Penn Station
The story's not true. But apparently, hundreds of people subscribed to activist email and text message lists got a message tonight that someone had attacked law enforcement officers at Penn Station, and that there were casualties. There's already speculation that the story was being circulated by a Bush operative to try to make the protesters look bad, or to try to disrupt protest activity. It'll be interesting to see whether this pattern continues over the next few days.
||3:37 AM || |
Someone attacked Secret Service officers in Penn Station
The story's not true. But apparently, hundreds of people subscribed to activist email and text message lists got a message tonight that someone had attacked law enforcement officers at Penn Station, and that there were casualties. There's already speculation that the story was being circulated by a Bush operative to try to make the protesters look bad, or to try to disrupt protest activity. It'll be interesting to see whether this pattern continues over the next few days.
||3:37 AM || |
Friday, August 27, 2004
Because it would be too easy?
Kerry Challenges Bush to Weekly Debates
In response to a call from John Kerry for a weekly series of issue-oriented debates over the next two months, the Bush campaign has responded that the President will not debate his opponent until after the convention, and until after Kerry has taken time to "finish the debates with himself." Conservatives have been crowing over the clever soundbite, which plays on the idea that Kerry doesn't know his position on the issues, but truly, the response is ridiculous. It's the equivalent of me challenging you to a fistfight, and you responding that won't fight me because you think I haven't taken enough boxing lessons.
The Bush campaign doesn't want to engage the issues, pure and simple. The issues are Bush's enemy. If he has to talk about his plans for the economy, for reducing deficit spending, for improving education, for cleaning up America's image in the world, he gets himself in trouble. Now, I don't think the Kerry campaign has much to crow about on the issues either, but that's likely just because I think he's wrong on most of them. He has taken the time over the last several weeks to make speeches not about how much he loves America, or about nebulous plans to save the world, but rather about specific policy questions that need answering. His answers have been stupid, but at least he's asking the questions. The Bush campaign seems to believe that asking the questions is a bad idea, and that the President is better off spouting platitudes about "moving America forward." Given the state of politics in this country, that may be the correct strategy. But it's not intelligent, and it's certainly not good leadership.
||12:41 PM || |
Kerry Challenges Bush to Weekly Debates
In response to a call from John Kerry for a weekly series of issue-oriented debates over the next two months, the Bush campaign has responded that the President will not debate his opponent until after the convention, and until after Kerry has taken time to "finish the debates with himself." Conservatives have been crowing over the clever soundbite, which plays on the idea that Kerry doesn't know his position on the issues, but truly, the response is ridiculous. It's the equivalent of me challenging you to a fistfight, and you responding that won't fight me because you think I haven't taken enough boxing lessons.
The Bush campaign doesn't want to engage the issues, pure and simple. The issues are Bush's enemy. If he has to talk about his plans for the economy, for reducing deficit spending, for improving education, for cleaning up America's image in the world, he gets himself in trouble. Now, I don't think the Kerry campaign has much to crow about on the issues either, but that's likely just because I think he's wrong on most of them. He has taken the time over the last several weeks to make speeches not about how much he loves America, or about nebulous plans to save the world, but rather about specific policy questions that need answering. His answers have been stupid, but at least he's asking the questions. The Bush campaign seems to believe that asking the questions is a bad idea, and that the President is better off spouting platitudes about "moving America forward." Given the state of politics in this country, that may be the correct strategy. But it's not intelligent, and it's certainly not good leadership.
||12:41 PM || |
Thursday, August 26, 2004
The Music of the Copyright
A Digital Divide
It's interesting to me that RealNetworks is so insistent that Apple should be forced to allow other companies to create media that are playable on iTunes. After all, the only reason that Real media couldn't be played on iTunes in the first place was that they inisisted on creating a proprietary format that was incompatible with existing mp3 players. And the reason they gave was the same as Apple's: they wanted to be able to ensure that copyright owners could control dissemination of their material. Pot, may I introduce kettle?
||11:17 AM || |
A Digital Divide
It's interesting to me that RealNetworks is so insistent that Apple should be forced to allow other companies to create media that are playable on iTunes. After all, the only reason that Real media couldn't be played on iTunes in the first place was that they inisisted on creating a proprietary format that was incompatible with existing mp3 players. And the reason they gave was the same as Apple's: they wanted to be able to ensure that copyright owners could control dissemination of their material. Pot, may I introduce kettle?
||11:17 AM || |
Out for Repairs
Posting will be light for a week or so, as my computer is in the shop. I've also picked up a new life lesson: your computer really is worth the cost of the extended warrantee.
||10:48 AM || |
Posting will be light for a week or so, as my computer is in the shop. I've also picked up a new life lesson: your computer really is worth the cost of the extended warrantee.
||10:48 AM || |
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
War Zone
Fear Itself
Gene Weingarten presents a simultaneously heartbreaking and uplifting article on life in terrorized societies.
The article points out that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are no good guys, only slightly less bad guys at one time or another. In a discussion on the article yesterday, Weingarten is asked whether he sees any resolution to the conflict. His response is one I've never heard before:
||12:55 PM || |
Fear Itself
Gene Weingarten presents a simultaneously heartbreaking and uplifting article on life in terrorized societies.
The article points out that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are no good guys, only slightly less bad guys at one time or another. In a discussion on the article yesterday, Weingarten is asked whether he sees any resolution to the conflict. His response is one I've never heard before:
"Many years ago, in a chat, I was asked (for some reason) what I thought of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I gave an elaborate answer that came down to this: The only solution that I see is for a total capitulation by Israel: A massive, humiliating ceding of land and sovereignty, far beyond what is traditionally discussed. All in exchange for a guarantee of peace. It would have to be perceived by the world as an utter victory for the Palestinians. The current government of Israel would probably collapse, which would not be a bad thing.I'm generally a proponent of the "don't negotiate with terrorists" school of thought on these matters, but in our world today, it seems like the terrorists are pretty well convinced, despite our best efforts, that these tactics do work. Years of terrorism have pushed Britain to negotiate with Ireland on several occasions when they didn't want to. The bombings in Madrid this spring led to the election of a government that has all but severed its support for war in Iraq. For many people, fear does drive their politics. Thankfully, those people are not yet the majority. But perhaps that's more a testament to the resiliance of self-delusion and hope than anything else. Could it be that such hope is keeping us from being as practical as we ought to be?
Then, wait 25 years and see what happens, and what each society has made of itself. With great luck and good fortune, you will have two thriving, coexisting sovereign nations. If there is continued Palestinian aggression, whatever the pretext, then there will be evidence that this was, all along, a proxy war for the destruction of Israel. I hope that is not the case. I pray that is not the case. But if it is, then Israel, as a sovereign state warred upon by another sovereign state, can respond appropriately."
||12:55 PM || |
I'm not not in favor of gay marriage...
Cheney breaks rank on same-sex marriage: Vice president refers to daughter as lesbian publicly for 1st time
It's interesting to me that Dick Cheney has taken so much criticism for his refusal until now to articulate a clear position on gay marriage, and yet now that he's come out against the constitutional amendment to ban it, he's being given a free pass. If the question is "should gay people have the same rights as straight people to marry those they love?" stating that the issue is "appropriately a matter for the states to decide" is not an answer. What I want to know is, what does he believe the state law ought to be? He has said that people "ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to," but that's not an answer either. Does he think that states should respect and support the relationships of homosexual and heterosexual couples equally?
Obviously, I applaud the vice president for parting ways with his party and his boss on this important issue. But he's being given far too much credit for a half-assed answer that doesn't actually tell us anything about his view of the role of government in sanctioning marriage. Nor does his answer show any particular courage of his convictions: if he believes that his daughter ought to have the same rights to marry the person of her choice as, say, President Bush's daughters presumably enjoy, he should say so. He can tell us, if he likes, at what level of government he believes such a change should occur, but that's not the main issue. The main issue is that an appalling number of Americans, including a majority in his party, believe that gay men and women are doing something wrong and that the government should take steps to actively make it harder for them to live their lives as they choose. If he thinks they're wrong, I'd like to hear him say so.
||11:43 AM || |
Cheney breaks rank on same-sex marriage: Vice president refers to daughter as lesbian publicly for 1st time
It's interesting to me that Dick Cheney has taken so much criticism for his refusal until now to articulate a clear position on gay marriage, and yet now that he's come out against the constitutional amendment to ban it, he's being given a free pass. If the question is "should gay people have the same rights as straight people to marry those they love?" stating that the issue is "appropriately a matter for the states to decide" is not an answer. What I want to know is, what does he believe the state law ought to be? He has said that people "ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to," but that's not an answer either. Does he think that states should respect and support the relationships of homosexual and heterosexual couples equally?
Obviously, I applaud the vice president for parting ways with his party and his boss on this important issue. But he's being given far too much credit for a half-assed answer that doesn't actually tell us anything about his view of the role of government in sanctioning marriage. Nor does his answer show any particular courage of his convictions: if he believes that his daughter ought to have the same rights to marry the person of her choice as, say, President Bush's daughters presumably enjoy, he should say so. He can tell us, if he likes, at what level of government he believes such a change should occur, but that's not the main issue. The main issue is that an appalling number of Americans, including a majority in his party, believe that gay men and women are doing something wrong and that the government should take steps to actively make it harder for them to live their lives as they choose. If he thinks they're wrong, I'd like to hear him say so.
||11:43 AM || |
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Electoral Politics Make Me Tired
I got my renewed voter registration in the mail yesterday. I'm officially (though not actually) a Republican, and I officially live at my current address. I'm hoping to get called for jury duty soon. But I digress.
I'm really, really tired of electoral politics. It almost makes me wish that I lived in a country where the outcome of the election actually meant that it was possible something really good could happen. Unfortunately, in most of those places, it's more likely that the outcome will mean that something really bad will happen. But the point is that their politicians are talking about actual issues: whether or not to allow freedom of the press, what laws to pass regarding the rights of women, how to fight corruption in government. Things that will really affect the day-to-day lives of the voters.
Here are the issues I've heard most about during the last few months of campaigning here:
||1:52 PM || |
I got my renewed voter registration in the mail yesterday. I'm officially (though not actually) a Republican, and I officially live at my current address. I'm hoping to get called for jury duty soon. But I digress.
I'm really, really tired of electoral politics. It almost makes me wish that I lived in a country where the outcome of the election actually meant that it was possible something really good could happen. Unfortunately, in most of those places, it's more likely that the outcome will mean that something really bad will happen. But the point is that their politicians are talking about actual issues: whether or not to allow freedom of the press, what laws to pass regarding the rights of women, how to fight corruption in government. Things that will really affect the day-to-day lives of the voters.
Here are the issues I've heard most about during the last few months of campaigning here:
- Some people who were in the same war as John Kerry 30 years ago don't like him much
- George Bush did not fight in a war 30 years ago
- George Bush has too much money
- Ralph Nader is desperate
- John Kerry has changed his mind over the last 40 years or so
- Theresa Heintz Kerry is annoying
- Bush's people are saying mean things about Kerry
- People think the federal government should do something about gay marriage, but neither candidate will
||1:52 PM || |
Junk Science
Contraceptive is linked to high STD risk
Nowhere in this article, nor in the study it references, is there data to support the idea that Depo Provera can "triple women's risk of infection with chlamydia and gonorrhea." Instead, what the study says is much more logical: the best way to prevent the spread of STDs is to use condoms. Therefore, women who use hormonal birth control without using condoms, just like women who don't use hormonal birth control and don't use condoms, are more likely than their latex-using sisters to contract STDs. The moral of the story: there's no reason to give up your preferred birth control method. Just be sure to use a condom if you're not mutually monogamous. But of course, that doesn't make as good a headline as "Birth Control Will Give You Herpes!"
||12:39 PM || |
Contraceptive is linked to high STD risk
Nowhere in this article, nor in the study it references, is there data to support the idea that Depo Provera can "triple women's risk of infection with chlamydia and gonorrhea." Instead, what the study says is much more logical: the best way to prevent the spread of STDs is to use condoms. Therefore, women who use hormonal birth control without using condoms, just like women who don't use hormonal birth control and don't use condoms, are more likely than their latex-using sisters to contract STDs. The moral of the story: there's no reason to give up your preferred birth control method. Just be sure to use a condom if you're not mutually monogamous. But of course, that doesn't make as good a headline as "Birth Control Will Give You Herpes!"
||12:39 PM || |
Kazakhstan Goes to the Polls
The central Asian nation of Kazakhstan will be holding parliamentary elections in about a month. The former Soviet republic has been nominally a democracy since 1991, although for most of its existence, it has been ruled by former Communist Party leader Nursultan Nazarbayev under a series of referenda approximately as fair as the "elections" that kept Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. He dissolved the Parliament in 1995 after the Constitutional Court ruled that 1994 elections were marred by "irregularities." The irregularities, unsurprisingly, were the result of intimidation and manipulation by Nazarbayev's ruling party, so he was essentially able to invalidate the election on the grounds that his flunkies had rendered them unfair. He then used his power as the sole ruling authority to amend the constitution to increase his own power, and held elections in 1995 in which hs own People's Union of Kazakhstan Unity Party was the only one able to participate unfettered, and thus won the overwhelming majority of the seats in the new parliament.
In 1999, Nazarbayev scheduled an election for the presidency, and then promptly disqualified his most formidable challenger on a technicality. The two other candidates who ended up running "against" him were actually supporters of the ruling party who wanted the incumbent to win. The OSCE refused to recognize the results of the election, calling them undemocratic and marred by fraud and scare tactics against opposition voters.
The last time Kazakhstan held parliamentary elections was in October 1999, when Nazarbayev consented to allow multiparty elections to take place. However, many opposition candidates and supporters were intimidated and prevented from campaigning or casting their ballots, as the incumbent government charged that they violated obscure provisions in election law. There was no independent oversight of voting or vote tallies, and Nazarbayev's newly formed Otan party won the majority of the seats. In 2000, the Otan-dominated parliament approved lifetime government privileges for Nazarbayev, including a permanent place on the Security Council and an advisory role in lawmaking.
Throughout 2002 and 2003, the government continued to crack down on opposition parties, namely the Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan Party (DCK), which has not proven as benevolent as its name might suggest. The party, largely made up of wealthy and powerful individuals threatened by Nazarbayev's consolidation of power, has held large public rallies over the past two years calling for democratic reform and an end to corruption. However, it seems more likely that they would simply prefer that corruption be in their own favor. Still, starving people will eat anything, and the DCK has become increasingly popular as the only seemingly viable alternative to the current regime. Fearful of competition, the ruling party has continued to crack down, and the two main leaders of DCK were arrested last year on charges of corruption. One has since been pardoned, but the other remains in prison.
Nazarbayev and others in his government have been accused of taking bribes from U.S. and other western oil companies to obtain lucrative energy deals in the country. Nazarbayev himself is immune from prosecution for bribery, several of his advisors have been indicted in the U.S. for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Nazarbayev continues to stifle freedom of the press and of assembly in his country, which is certain to give him an unfair advantage in next month's elections. Despite charges of bribery, he remains a powerful and charismatic leader who wields a great deal of influence over the election. The Otan government has continued to crack down on opposition newsmedia, hoping to fine and jail their opponents out of business.
The opposition is already charging that intimidation is occurring and that Otan is preparing to rig vote counts. They have threatened to boycott the election entirely unless the government withdraws plans to introduce an easily manipulable electronic voting system. The OSCE preliminarily approved limited electronic voting, but cautions that, like the systems under consideration in the U.S., the Kazakh system does not allow for a sufficient degree of accountability or for accurate recounts.
One cause for hope: Nazarbayev recently appointed outspoken government critic Altynbek Sarsenbayev as the new minister of information. At least in theory, the appointment could give wider latitude to opposition views, and may help to ensure equal access to state-run television and other major media. Of course, the real test will be whether those parties are given equal access to the elections themselves. For that, we will have to wait and see.
||12:24 PM || |
The central Asian nation of Kazakhstan will be holding parliamentary elections in about a month. The former Soviet republic has been nominally a democracy since 1991, although for most of its existence, it has been ruled by former Communist Party leader Nursultan Nazarbayev under a series of referenda approximately as fair as the "elections" that kept Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. He dissolved the Parliament in 1995 after the Constitutional Court ruled that 1994 elections were marred by "irregularities." The irregularities, unsurprisingly, were the result of intimidation and manipulation by Nazarbayev's ruling party, so he was essentially able to invalidate the election on the grounds that his flunkies had rendered them unfair. He then used his power as the sole ruling authority to amend the constitution to increase his own power, and held elections in 1995 in which hs own People's Union of Kazakhstan Unity Party was the only one able to participate unfettered, and thus won the overwhelming majority of the seats in the new parliament.
In 1999, Nazarbayev scheduled an election for the presidency, and then promptly disqualified his most formidable challenger on a technicality. The two other candidates who ended up running "against" him were actually supporters of the ruling party who wanted the incumbent to win. The OSCE refused to recognize the results of the election, calling them undemocratic and marred by fraud and scare tactics against opposition voters.
The last time Kazakhstan held parliamentary elections was in October 1999, when Nazarbayev consented to allow multiparty elections to take place. However, many opposition candidates and supporters were intimidated and prevented from campaigning or casting their ballots, as the incumbent government charged that they violated obscure provisions in election law. There was no independent oversight of voting or vote tallies, and Nazarbayev's newly formed Otan party won the majority of the seats. In 2000, the Otan-dominated parliament approved lifetime government privileges for Nazarbayev, including a permanent place on the Security Council and an advisory role in lawmaking.
Throughout 2002 and 2003, the government continued to crack down on opposition parties, namely the Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan Party (DCK), which has not proven as benevolent as its name might suggest. The party, largely made up of wealthy and powerful individuals threatened by Nazarbayev's consolidation of power, has held large public rallies over the past two years calling for democratic reform and an end to corruption. However, it seems more likely that they would simply prefer that corruption be in their own favor. Still, starving people will eat anything, and the DCK has become increasingly popular as the only seemingly viable alternative to the current regime. Fearful of competition, the ruling party has continued to crack down, and the two main leaders of DCK were arrested last year on charges of corruption. One has since been pardoned, but the other remains in prison.
Nazarbayev and others in his government have been accused of taking bribes from U.S. and other western oil companies to obtain lucrative energy deals in the country. Nazarbayev himself is immune from prosecution for bribery, several of his advisors have been indicted in the U.S. for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Nazarbayev continues to stifle freedom of the press and of assembly in his country, which is certain to give him an unfair advantage in next month's elections. Despite charges of bribery, he remains a powerful and charismatic leader who wields a great deal of influence over the election. The Otan government has continued to crack down on opposition newsmedia, hoping to fine and jail their opponents out of business.
The opposition is already charging that intimidation is occurring and that Otan is preparing to rig vote counts. They have threatened to boycott the election entirely unless the government withdraws plans to introduce an easily manipulable electronic voting system. The OSCE preliminarily approved limited electronic voting, but cautions that, like the systems under consideration in the U.S., the Kazakh system does not allow for a sufficient degree of accountability or for accurate recounts.
One cause for hope: Nazarbayev recently appointed outspoken government critic Altynbek Sarsenbayev as the new minister of information. At least in theory, the appointment could give wider latitude to opposition views, and may help to ensure equal access to state-run television and other major media. Of course, the real test will be whether those parties are given equal access to the elections themselves. For that, we will have to wait and see.
||12:24 PM || |
Never Ever Saw the Stars So Bright...
Joy in Mudville:The Phish scene's swan song
Julian and I went to Phish's final show last weekend up in Vermont, and his Reason write-up is excellent.
||11:18 AM || |
Joy in Mudville:The Phish scene's swan song
Julian and I went to Phish's final show last weekend up in Vermont, and his Reason write-up is excellent.
||11:18 AM || |
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Fanning the Plame
In the Matt Cooper Case, Chilling Implications
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to issue subpoenas in the Valerie Plame leak. However, he's not trying to compel testimony from Robert Novak, the columnist who originally revealed Plame's CIA status. Instead, he is going after other journalists who wrote about the story, including Time magazine's Matt Cooper, who currently faces a jail sentence for refusing to reveal his source.
I know it's not in the Constitution, or part of common law, but it seems to me that journalists should have extremely broad latitude to protect the confidentiality of their sources. Unless a source has unique information, unattainable by any other means, that would allow us to prevent a future crime, he should be allowed to remain anonymous. Without such protection, journalists cannot truly promise sources anonymity, meaning that many important stories might never be told. Of course, there are journalists willing to go to jail to protect a source, and they are brave and commendable individuals. But willingness to endure prison time shouldn't be a prerequisite for investigative journalism.
In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that a journalist must testify in court in response to a subpoena, and that the First Amendment does not protect the right to keep sources confidential under such circumstances. However, Justice Potter Stewart, in a stirring dissent, explicated a three-part test for whether such subpoenas against journalists should be granted in the first place:
The press is only truly free if it is allowed to report on whatever it deems newsworthy without interference from the government. If they must fear threats from government officials who don't like what they print, it has a chilling effect on the level of discourse in the media as a whole. Important stories may never be reported because the few people who know the truth about them will be afraid of being found out if they contact the press. Journalists will end up afraid to print certain things for fear of being subject to a criminal investigation. It is happening today in countries less free than ours all over the world, and it can happen here if we let it.
Of course, there are a tiny number of cases in which prior restraint can prevent loss of life or other tragedies, and in those cases, interference may be justified. But there is no future danger to be prevented if Cooper and his fellow journalists are compelled to talk in this case and others like it. And punishing people who may or may not have committed crimes is not sufficient justification for abridging the freedom of the press.
The judge and the prosecutor in this case are relying on the 1982 Intelligence Identities Prosecution Act, which allows 10 years in prison and/or a $50,000 fine for:
Paul Heller has obtained the address and phone number of Judge Thomas Hogan, who issued the contempt citation against Cooper, and is urging people to call and express their dismay at his contempt for freedom of the press. Heller claims that Hogan is a conservative shill who is protecting journalists who share his politics and going after those who attack the current administration. While I can't speak to the veracity of those claims, it will be interesting to see whether public pressure can help matters at all. I hope that public outcry against attacks on the press will lead to better laws protecting journalistic freedom. In the meantime, a journalist who receives a tip about a story like this may think twice before printing it, no matter how newsworthy it may be.
||12:22 PM || |
In the Matt Cooper Case, Chilling Implications
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to issue subpoenas in the Valerie Plame leak. However, he's not trying to compel testimony from Robert Novak, the columnist who originally revealed Plame's CIA status. Instead, he is going after other journalists who wrote about the story, including Time magazine's Matt Cooper, who currently faces a jail sentence for refusing to reveal his source.
I know it's not in the Constitution, or part of common law, but it seems to me that journalists should have extremely broad latitude to protect the confidentiality of their sources. Unless a source has unique information, unattainable by any other means, that would allow us to prevent a future crime, he should be allowed to remain anonymous. Without such protection, journalists cannot truly promise sources anonymity, meaning that many important stories might never be told. Of course, there are journalists willing to go to jail to protect a source, and they are brave and commendable individuals. But willingness to endure prison time shouldn't be a prerequisite for investigative journalism.
In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that a journalist must testify in court in response to a subpoena, and that the First Amendment does not protect the right to keep sources confidential under such circumstances. However, Justice Potter Stewart, in a stirring dissent, explicated a three-part test for whether such subpoenas against journalists should be granted in the first place:
- Is the information relevant?
- Is there a compelling need for the information?
- Is it unavailable elsewhere?
The press is only truly free if it is allowed to report on whatever it deems newsworthy without interference from the government. If they must fear threats from government officials who don't like what they print, it has a chilling effect on the level of discourse in the media as a whole. Important stories may never be reported because the few people who know the truth about them will be afraid of being found out if they contact the press. Journalists will end up afraid to print certain things for fear of being subject to a criminal investigation. It is happening today in countries less free than ours all over the world, and it can happen here if we let it.
Of course, there are a tiny number of cases in which prior restraint can prevent loss of life or other tragedies, and in those cases, interference may be justified. But there is no future danger to be prevented if Cooper and his fellow journalists are compelled to talk in this case and others like it. And punishing people who may or may not have committed crimes is not sufficient justification for abridging the freedom of the press.
The judge and the prosecutor in this case are relying on the 1982 Intelligence Identities Prosecution Act, which allows 10 years in prison and/or a $50,000 fine for:
"Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents. Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."In other words, in order to be guilty of that crime, a journalist would have to repeatedly disclose the identities of covert agents with the knowledge that such information is classified. So far as we can tell, no journalist is guilty of that in this case. However, the law gives wide latitude to compel testimony of witnesses like Cooper and Novak in the course of an investigation of such an event, which is how prosecutors in this case are getting their subpoenas. It's yet another case of good intentions leading to bad laws.
Paul Heller has obtained the address and phone number of Judge Thomas Hogan, who issued the contempt citation against Cooper, and is urging people to call and express their dismay at his contempt for freedom of the press. Heller claims that Hogan is a conservative shill who is protecting journalists who share his politics and going after those who attack the current administration. While I can't speak to the veracity of those claims, it will be interesting to see whether public pressure can help matters at all. I hope that public outcry against attacks on the press will lead to better laws protecting journalistic freedom. In the meantime, a journalist who receives a tip about a story like this may think twice before printing it, no matter how newsworthy it may be.
||12:22 PM || |
In Defense of Price Gouging
Price-gouging complaints beginning to pile up
Prices are never static, and they are never based solely on what it costs for a business owner to provide a given good or service. Demand, willingness of consumers to pay, interest in maintaining inventory to meet future needs, and dozens of other factors can all go into setting prices. It is neither unfair nor "greedy" for business owners to raise prices when demand rises.
In the case of purchasing items like bottled water and generators during inclement weather, higher prices can actually help to ensure that supplies are available to those who need them most. While a person might, for example, buy more water than his family could possibly drink during the emergency if water were $1 a gallon, he would be less likely to over-purchase at $10 a gallon. That means that the first people to arrive at the store--people who may be less needy than other consumers who are too busy tending to medical and other needs to go shopping--won't buy out the stock, leaving others without access to necessary supplies.
Business owners themselves also have an interest in making sure their inventory doesn't sell out immediately, especially in situations where it's unclear when they'll be able to restock. If I have no way of knowing when the weather will permit delivery trucks to get to my store, it makes sense that I would want to avoid selling out of important items right away, because then I can stay open and bring in customers to buy other things they might not otherwise have bought. Just as toy stores that had Tickle-Me-Elmo in stock a few Christmases ago saw an uptick in sales of other toys, a store that has generators or rubber boots in stock may see customers coming in to buy those items and leaving with other items in addition. That's just saavy business sense.
Additionally, in the case of services like removing felled trees and pumping out flooded basements, higher prices can act as a sort of triage system. Someone who really needs that tree gone right now in order to preserve her home's structural integrity will pay the higher prices, while someone with a dead tree that is inconvenient, but not dangerous, would be more likely to wait a few weeks until prices fall to more normal levels. A family who has nowhere else to go may pay $200 for a hotel room for the night, whereas if they had relatives a few hours away they could stay with for free, that price might entice them to keep driving, freeing up the room for someone with no other options.
Of course, all of this assumes that people have planned for emergencies ahead of time. Many people, even though they know that they live in a hurricane prone area and that summer is storm season, don't stock up on necessary supplies and fortify their homes ahead of time. Many don't have emergency plans. Many are not prepared when storms hit, and then behave as though the world has a responsibility to cater to needs they could have met themselves had they shown a little foresight. In this case, price gouging may act as an incentive to be more prepared the next time. I know that after I saw flashlights on sale for $10+ apiece during the northeast blackout a year ago, I now make sure that I have a flashlight in my apartment and my office at all times, just in case. People remember what costs them, and they tend to try to avoid those costs in the future. So perhaps that tree that cost $8,000 to remove after this storm will remind people to have their trees trimmed and inspected regularly in subsequent years.
I'm not defending business owners who reneg on past agreements. If you and I agreed last week that I could rent a room from you tonight for $50, you don't have the right to cancel that contract now just because someone else is willing to pay $100, and you certainly don't have the right to extort me for more money later on in order to keep my reservation. Those cases should be prosecuted under existing fraud and other laws. But unless we had an agreement, you can charge whatever you want to rent a room, no matter what you or anyone else would have charged yesterday.
In the end, it's about the rights of business owners to set their own prices. If I have a bottle of water and you want it, I have every right to sell it for any price I can get you to agree to pay. Many business owners give away inventory for free during disasters to those who really need it, as we saw here in NYC after 9/11. They're human too, and they respond to genuine suffering. But they also have to keep their stores open and recoup money they lost due to the disaster so that they can afford to pay their employees and care for their families. Even if you think it's greedy and selfish, it's economically sound, and can benefit consumers too, if we let business owners set prices according to rising demand in emergencies.
||11:25 AM || |
Price-gouging complaints beginning to pile up
Prices are never static, and they are never based solely on what it costs for a business owner to provide a given good or service. Demand, willingness of consumers to pay, interest in maintaining inventory to meet future needs, and dozens of other factors can all go into setting prices. It is neither unfair nor "greedy" for business owners to raise prices when demand rises.
In the case of purchasing items like bottled water and generators during inclement weather, higher prices can actually help to ensure that supplies are available to those who need them most. While a person might, for example, buy more water than his family could possibly drink during the emergency if water were $1 a gallon, he would be less likely to over-purchase at $10 a gallon. That means that the first people to arrive at the store--people who may be less needy than other consumers who are too busy tending to medical and other needs to go shopping--won't buy out the stock, leaving others without access to necessary supplies.
Business owners themselves also have an interest in making sure their inventory doesn't sell out immediately, especially in situations where it's unclear when they'll be able to restock. If I have no way of knowing when the weather will permit delivery trucks to get to my store, it makes sense that I would want to avoid selling out of important items right away, because then I can stay open and bring in customers to buy other things they might not otherwise have bought. Just as toy stores that had Tickle-Me-Elmo in stock a few Christmases ago saw an uptick in sales of other toys, a store that has generators or rubber boots in stock may see customers coming in to buy those items and leaving with other items in addition. That's just saavy business sense.
Additionally, in the case of services like removing felled trees and pumping out flooded basements, higher prices can act as a sort of triage system. Someone who really needs that tree gone right now in order to preserve her home's structural integrity will pay the higher prices, while someone with a dead tree that is inconvenient, but not dangerous, would be more likely to wait a few weeks until prices fall to more normal levels. A family who has nowhere else to go may pay $200 for a hotel room for the night, whereas if they had relatives a few hours away they could stay with for free, that price might entice them to keep driving, freeing up the room for someone with no other options.
Of course, all of this assumes that people have planned for emergencies ahead of time. Many people, even though they know that they live in a hurricane prone area and that summer is storm season, don't stock up on necessary supplies and fortify their homes ahead of time. Many don't have emergency plans. Many are not prepared when storms hit, and then behave as though the world has a responsibility to cater to needs they could have met themselves had they shown a little foresight. In this case, price gouging may act as an incentive to be more prepared the next time. I know that after I saw flashlights on sale for $10+ apiece during the northeast blackout a year ago, I now make sure that I have a flashlight in my apartment and my office at all times, just in case. People remember what costs them, and they tend to try to avoid those costs in the future. So perhaps that tree that cost $8,000 to remove after this storm will remind people to have their trees trimmed and inspected regularly in subsequent years.
I'm not defending business owners who reneg on past agreements. If you and I agreed last week that I could rent a room from you tonight for $50, you don't have the right to cancel that contract now just because someone else is willing to pay $100, and you certainly don't have the right to extort me for more money later on in order to keep my reservation. Those cases should be prosecuted under existing fraud and other laws. But unless we had an agreement, you can charge whatever you want to rent a room, no matter what you or anyone else would have charged yesterday.
In the end, it's about the rights of business owners to set their own prices. If I have a bottle of water and you want it, I have every right to sell it for any price I can get you to agree to pay. Many business owners give away inventory for free during disasters to those who really need it, as we saw here in NYC after 9/11. They're human too, and they respond to genuine suffering. But they also have to keep their stores open and recoup money they lost due to the disaster so that they can afford to pay their employees and care for their families. Even if you think it's greedy and selfish, it's economically sound, and can benefit consumers too, if we let business owners set prices according to rising demand in emergencies.
||11:25 AM || |
Friday, August 13, 2004
Away Message
I'll be out of town through Monday. But when I return, I should have stories to tell.
||9:02 AM || |
I'll be out of town through Monday. But when I return, I should have stories to tell.
||9:02 AM || |
Daily Reads
Blogroll Me!
"Real" Media
The New York Times
Reason
Salon
The Wall Street Journal
Interested in a link exchange?
Send me an
email
.
All letters regarding this site are considered subject to publication unless specifically marked as private. Requests for anonymity will be honored.
< LibertyLoggers >
< < APDA WebRing > >
< # NYUblogs ? >
< ? six degrees # >
< < 1% Bloggers > >
:: i will not be silenced ::
All materials © Amy Phillips
For permission to reprint, problems, or questions, please contact mail@50minutehour.net