"Without racism, soldiers would realize that they have more in common with the Iraqi people, than they do with the billionaries who sent us to war."

Two videos in a row, though this one consists of so much unfiltered truth and poetic appeals to brotherhood that it cut through the malaise of my currently flu-addled brain:

What happens if net neutrality fails?

Reddit user quink offers this startling glimpse of what would likely happen should net neutrality fail. Click on the image to enlarge:


I love the little honest touches in this one - the way the company compartmentalizes the internet as if certain functions can be experienced separately, rather than thinking of the internet as a massive, interrelated organic unit as most of us do, or tries to rely on the ignorance of the consumer to sell stupid services they shouldn't need in the first place. A classic case of "break it, then fix it for a price."

link

Intellectual Property destroyed as shop worker allowed to sing in store without performance license, artists suffer

In an unfortunate turn of events, the PRS for Music society of the UK (not really like the RIAA as they're non-profit and aren't a trade group but still comparable in their attitude) has decided to let a supermarket worker off the hook for singing in the store where she works without a performance license, after initially (and rightly) threatening her with a fine.

The organization has done good work in the past according to Wikipedia:

In 2008 the PRS expanded their legal battle to require licensing to include 61 year old mechanic, Paul Wilson, who plays his radio when he works by himself, a bakery that plays a radio in a private room at the back of the shop, a woman who plays classical radio to calm her horses, and community centres that allow children to sing carols in public.

Shaking down schoolchildren and horses is a good start, and this group's shown a tireless dedication in the past to removing music videos from the internet, a step closer toward every good citizen's ultimate goal of making listening to new music little more than a theoretical possibility. Those of us who love the feeling of surprise upon listening to purchased records for the first time (bought at random according to the cover art the way God intended) need to work harder to remove music, and possibly other sounds as well, from the public arena.

Singing in a store may not seem the same as boarding a merchant ship and killing

its occupants, but it's the exact same thing. In fact, "piracy" doesn't even begin
to describe the effect on artists, producers and, most especially, our precious,
precious music industry executives. Stay informed. Stay Jesusamericafreedom.

In a flagrant disregard for the rights of artists, performers and our precious, precious music industry executives, the organization elected to send this unrepentant copyright criminal a bouquet of flowers and an apology rather than stand up for the rights of those who write music and then let others hear it only over their cold, dead bodies. How much is a performance license anyway? Shouldn't we all keep ours in our wallets? "I'm sorry - I can't sing with you. I didn't renew my I'm Walking on Sunshine license."

The village store where Mrs Burt works was contacted by the PRS earlier this year to warn them that a licence was needed to play a radio within earshot of customers.

When the shop owner decided to get rid of the radio as a result, Mrs Burt said she began singing as she worked.

. . .

"When I heard that the PRS said I would be prosecuted for not having a performance licence, I thought it was a joke and started laughing.

"I was then told I could be fined thousands of pounds. But I couldn't stop myself singing.

"They would need to put a plaster over my mouth to get me to stop, I can't help it."

Making her get rid of her radio, which is a device that pulls music from the air that everybody can listen to for free, was certainly a good start. But I don't think I need to inform you of the gravity of this situation. Here's hoping that the people who initially made the decision to threaten this woman remain in their positions and then create a climate where artists can have the freedom they need to create the works of art that enrich our lives in the palm-scanned, soundproofed single-occupancy rooms in which we're permitted to listen to them.

link

Yellow journalism and FNC

Fox has ridden the coattails of the Tea Party protests since their inception - anchors promoted the events on their shows, attended the events, and the network discussed them with an ideological singularity that could only have come from higher edict. In short, the Tea Parties became an ideological bulwark for Fox - both a justification of and a continuation of the newfound protest spirit of the conservative wing of the Republican party. The network even put out a full-page ad falsely accusing its competitors of not covering the events, hardly a desperate move when the network's diehard viewers wouldn't be caught dead watching CNN long enough to watch them refute the claim:



News networks attempting to influence the news for their own benefit is nothing new, though it's something we like to imagine has ended in modern journalism. Fox finds itself in a unique situation - its cavalcade of cartoon commentators allows it to indirectly (and directly) promote events while maintaining the illusion that these protests are entirely the spontaneous actions of Americans. The network is able to attend the events and attempt to influence public perception of them further through coaching and slanted reporting, and finally actively insinuate bias against networks who don't report the story they way they do. All of our networks are run by megacorporations, indicating that certain stories will not be told and certain angles not covered, though Fox's explicit promotion and direction of the corporate agenda (in this and other stories) is more directly alarming and transparent.

Apple explains why AT&T had nothing to do with (everything to do with) Apple's rejection (non-rejection) of Google Voice for the iPhone

Those looking to read a nice duplicitous release could do worse than "Apple Answers the FCC's Questions", in which Apple trips all over itself attempting to explain how its rejection (though Apple denies the term, saying the App has not been rejected, just not approved, and that Apple "continue to study" it) of Google's communication service Google Voice meets the needs of its consumers and, not coincidentally, the telecommunications giant which has the exclusive deal to provide service to the iPhone. Naturally, they then begin to explain exactly what AT&T had to do with the rejection (uh. . . everything):

Answering the question "Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications?"

Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.

...

Then answering the question: "Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)?"

There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T’s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T’s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

Slick, Apple - slick.

Link

Relevant editorial: Apple's Animal Farm

We don't support the private option, just high rates and bad care

Let's see who's really for individual freedom and private sector choice: The New York State Insurance Department is twisting the law to force an NYC doctor offering affordable health care to raise his rates. When will we accept that these bureaucracies aren't even in the business of health?

And when have trade groups or bureaucracies ever looked out for consumers?

Thesis and Evidence

Thesis: Megacorporations censor the news and restrict reporting on their shady dealings, effectively keeping Americans in the dark about policies that affect them and the world while walking hand in hand with Washington.

Exhibit 1: Fox News and MSNBC coming to an agreement to mutually censor both Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann in order to protect the megacorporations that run these networks.

Watch this incredible now-banned SNL sketch for the more general gist of what's going on. (On a related note, NBC is particularly diligent about keeping this sketch out of circulation, citing their own copyright.) When a few major corporations seek to control our nation's flow of information, it's particularly easy to make the independent media look like alarmist nuts for reporting stories and taking perspectives the more mainstream media will never touch.

EDIT: I'm very glad to be wrong, barring a continuation of the conspiracy theory. Let's hope Bill follows suit on the paltry bit of good reporting he was doing.

Dirtbag power company to charge solar panel users an extra fee

Those looking for a primer in convoluted, selfish deceit could do worse than a recent policy from Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which plans to begin charging users of solar panels an extra fee. Why?

[I]mplementing the fee would level the playing field for electricity users who are currently subsidizing connectivity fees for solar users, who sometimes use no electricity in a given month and therefore, pay no electrical fees.

Does that reasoning confuse you?

But when pressed, [Xcel spokeman] Henley admitted that currently, no Xcel electric customers pay extra to fund solar connectivity fees. In reality, Xcel absorbs those fees. The money from the proposed fee would not go into the pockets of electric customers, but would go back to Xcel. Henley said the fee is a preventative measure to ensure that, down the road, solar customers do not get free rides.

The game so far:

#1 Lie
#2 Admission of Lie
#3 Reiteration of Lie

But don't worry: Energy-efficient customers won't be punished as long as they compensate by being extra-wasteful in other ways:

Henley disputed that, saying some solar customers who used a sufficient amount of electrical energy each month would never have to pay the connectivity fee.

It's nice to know that we still have corporations around who aren't afraid to reject the traditional "provide a service, receive a reward" model of capitalism, instead policing their consumers and punishing those who are doing their best to save the planet and be responsible but might interfere with their future profits.

Xtort Power and Their Fees