Wholesale theft has been a widely-rationalized right of the cheap, lazy, and generally bewildered since the web’s inception. Strong action against online piracy is long overdue, and the Stop Online Piracy Act is the justified legal reaction caused by the failure of on-line services to take responsibility for their peddling stolen goods. Zealots seeing no other way besides theft to get knowledge, have likely as well never considered supporting local public libraries. And with ultimate hypocrisy, Wikipedia now reveals its true understanding of who controls everything the public gave it for free—themselves!
Commentary
Jan 2012 18
Wikipedia, Google, Facebook: Imagine a World with Respect for Intellectual and Creative Property Rights
By Stanley Jungleib1 CommentBesides the November elections, for many of us the biggest ordeal in 2012 will likely be campaign-level carpet-bombing by ‘insights’ about 2012. The slapstick articles aligning The Mayan Calendar, the obligatory Nostradamus, and The End of Days. The thick but vacuous best-sellers. 66.6% of the pre-GED History channel. In fact, there is no rare galactic alignment due. So, the rearrangement of continents is a non-starter. As well, believers may not meet their makers, and neither will our problems necessarily explode nor be solved.
Though it may not sell well, I suggest 2012 will be a year as any other—like the weather itself—no more predictable, no less chaotic. There will be hurricanes in Florida. Of the hundreds of daily earthquakes, a few will merit news coverage. Accidents will happen. An Italian sea captain will inexplicably use a half-billion dollar ship as his personal surfboard. And sure, Iran seems deliberately provocative of military intervention, but even this kind of confrontation is hardly unprecedented for the historical Persia. (A prior trade route blockage having stimulated discovery of the New World.)
To the extent one cares, the facts of the matter are thus: NASA – The Great 2012 Doomsday Scare.
So, one of the best results for which to hope is that on December 22, a segment of the population will look around at their hysterical collections of hysterical popularbacks and magazines, reflect on their time wasted listening to hapless commentators, decide that they have been conditioned for the last time by the publishing industry, traditional and “social” media outlets, and declare their mental independence from them.
Perhaps then the perennial, beguiling, idle cliche’ about “the shift in consciousness which the planet is about to undergo” can finally be laid to rest in favor of a less selfish, indolent, and oblivious awareness of world events that recognizes rather than substitutes for humanism and activism.
Now that would be revolutionary, because I suspect that the exploited and starving billions sleepless from gunfire in the night are not waiting for liberation or food from supposed bourgeoisie ‘shifts in consciousness’ arbitrarily linked by marketeers to The Mayan Calendar. More likely, they would justifiably regard such insightful, profiteering light-worker missionaries actually daring to message that view among them to be irrelevant if not insane contributors to their ordeals, murder-able simply for their sandals.
I took my early writing lessons from Bertrand Russell and H.L. Mencken, the former having mastered the understated, and latter the overstated, culturally-indispensable duty of iconoclasm. Until finding Hitchens it seemed the rising tides of U.S. conformism and fundamentalism had erased the last vestiges of journalistic criticism. Like Mencken, we witnessed Hitchens cross the line occasionally even with his colleagues. But like Mencken, we understood his impatience was informed by the sufferings he witnessed, the duplicities he discovered, and his zeal for vigorous, rational, evidence-based debate. In both writers, polemic may guide but bombast is only a deliberately obvious last resort …
“If you care about the points of agreement and civility, then, you had better be well-equipped with points of argument and combativity, because if you are not then the “center” will be occupied and defined without your having helped to decide it, or determine what and where that is.”
… while attending to our evolutionary reliance upon dialectic:
“It is idiotic to believe that consensus is the highest good… In life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation.”
“Again, it is a matter of how one thinks and not of what one thinks.”
Pondering my sympathies for these three models, I yesterday found myself saying something ridiculous: “Damn. Now that Christopher is dead someone has to fill his shoes.” Merely that he might enjoy the utter audacity of such a remark sustained my laughter. Today the appropriate rejoinder emerges obvious: the obligation enures to each of us, in fact, as (even before his illness was reported) he concluded Letters to a Young Contrarian:
“Beware the irrational, however seductive.
Shun the “transcendent” and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself.
Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others.
Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish.
Picture all experts as if they were mammals.
Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity.
Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence.
Suspect your own motives, and all excuses.
Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”
Journalists hoping to best Hitchens’ legacy must realize they will never be able to blog their way there. They must courageously test these principles in the back alleys and on the front lines of world conflict, mirroring as doggedly and lucidly to us as did he all the wrongs traceable to national or personal irresponsiblity or crippled thinking, that can indeed be uncovered by informed and determined individuals.
Like Mencken and perhaps Russell, Hitchens successfully modeled the transmutation of his personal quirks and failings into widespread respect—largely through his own self-acceptance. Finally, in the tradition of the peripatetic Hemingway, Hitch’s exemplary endurance and prolific output leaves lessons indispensable for the budding, future contrarian; for whom we must also wish his character to heed tolls loudly.
It is not hard to decipher what motivates malevolent University administrators and staff who choose to mistreat and attack our children. A sickening video from U.C. Regents Chair Sherry Lansing sent to U.C. supporters summarizes these rationalizations in neat totalitarian tradition: “We had information.”
What she really means is “We have aspirations.” Four decades ago, an otherwise decent scholar who authored the admirable Language in Thought and Action, launched a Senatorial campaign on the backs of students trampled upon by his violent handling at San Francisco State. He easily became a conservative darling and star—skillfully developing the nonsensical sound bite into a Senatorial win. Yet, his supporters were oblivious that the demands of leadership change utterly when you can’t just boss people around, and hard-lining ‘outsider’ Sleepin’ Sam Hayakawa with his iconic, stupid tam-o’-shanter served California with possibly the worst Senate term in history.
Fatigued by Schwarzenegger’s laughable ‘outsider’ reign, modern Californians rightly feared and rejected the ultra-unqualified hard-lining ‘outsider’ Meg Whitman—who’s platform basically consisted of jailing anyone who disagreed with her. Tomorrow we can indeed be quite thankful she lost, as even more violence would have certainly resulted.
Now consider ultimate ‘outsider’ U.C. sophomore President Mark Yudof and his Texas-bred brand of justice; a former law professor who amidst spreading protests tellingly could not think to proactively direct his staff to refresh themselves on California law and precedent. While his U.C. Public Relations executes a full court press upon editorial boards around the state, simply review the U.C. Davis footage. Squint as you may, you cannot see any actual danger to these officers. They were reportedly acting under policy set by Davis Chancellor “I approved it before it blew up in my face” Katehi. The primary assailant was not a scared rookie, but a seasoned veteran with significant authority poisoning the defenseless in calm deliberation.
Having hosted what may well be a Kent State-level national catalyst, U.C. is convening task forces and holding webinars and expressing concern. They absurdly speak of ‘sensitivity training’ for those hired to flaunt their insensitivity. But ‘administrative leave’ is pro-forma, and while Yudof has commissioned an outside investigation, he has neither offered nor demanded full accountability.
As if the video is not sufficient reason for the Regents to act in concert, as if U.C. did not give birth to the Free Speech Movement and a dozen others so has not already ‘studied’ the issues for fifty years, Yudof wants his policy answers not now but in 30 days—that is, 30 news cycles—buried amidst vacation and the holidays. After all, as Sleepin’ Sam proved, you can use our children as chips in ‘Texas Hold-Em’ with impunity for at least that long, and just see what hand politics deals you.
Lastly and tragically, ultimate insider Governor Brown’s astonishing silence as he consults his polls and shops for the perfect tam-o’-shanter profoundly disappoints this writer and thoroughly reinforces the present interpretation. His staff blithely told the Fresno Bee these are “local matters.” That is over-the-top insane: even disregarding the legal and moral issues, and damage to the state’s reputation, the U.C. system is documented by Yudof’s detailed September, 2011 report to be so intertwined with California’s economy that disruptions there can ripple throughout the state potentially with a 10X effect. And now that resource is at risk by failed management.
Jerry—cute hat, but don’t snore so loudly! Instead, take this leadership lesson from your dad: “When there is no consensus, only urgency, I will speak out.”— Governor Pat Brown (Second Inaugural Address, January 7, 1963). You could start by telling us what he would have done had you the convictions—right or wrong—to have sat with those kids.
Update: On 2013 May 08, Chair Lansing wrote alumni that “Mark Yudof is ending his tenure as President of the University of California on August 31st.”
Aug 2011 19
BART, Cell Phones, and the FCC: On the ‘EDGE’ Of Civil Cyberwarfare
By Stanley JungleibNo CommentsRevised: 20130321
The FCC has made a point of issuing inordinately stiff fines to small businesses such as restaurants that merely wish to have a phone-free atmosphere, on the rationale that even the most limited jammers might interfere with an emergency call. So the dispositive question now is simple: how large a fine will FCC impose on BART for its unprecedented August 11th widespread, intentional, malicious disruption of cell phone service, and the attendant liabilities regarding public safety?
And if there is no appropriate fine, then we must understand that civil cyberwarfare is now underway. Other municipalities will take up the strategy with impunity, emboldened to cut communications or generate false ones whenever they like. The same Farcebook and Flitter broadband—recently reported as utterly vulnerable to invasion by so-called ‘unnamed’ nations—which FCC Chairman Genachowski steadfastly and idiotically advocates as the basis of our emergency communications will have in one stroke been revealed to equally serve civil manipulation and misinformation as well.
I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong; FCC says it is investigating, and it should only take one word from the White House to remind this Chairman of his obligations to the public’s long-term interest.
Nevertheless, the wireless industry’s grip on FCC is vise-like, resulting in systematic mismanagement of broadband regulation, emergency communications, low-power community services, and through budget cuts most of the rest of its traditional responsibilities under the Communications Act of 1934. This bedrock was conspiratorially weakened by lobbyists via the Telecom Act of 1996—upon which Hundt, Kennard, and their common Counsel Genachowski built their careers by re-focusing the FCC on wireless service spectrum auctions of at least questionable legality. And that, being the very same unprecedented Federal law which pre-empts towns from resisting cell towers as well! [see Levitt, 2001 Cell Towers]
Thus, after two decades of the industry writing its own rules and placing its own Chairmen, expectations for FCC impartiality concerning wireless service regulation cannot be deservedly lower. And the only rational response to highly predictable Federal inaction against this outrage may well be increased civil disobedience with a new emphasis on independent radio operation, that is, Radical Radio.
The Amateur Radio Service (ARS) legendarily supplements if not replaces wireless and wired communication systems under emergency conditions, typically for weather or geographic disasters—responding to “acts of God.” But, unless the FCC and BART swiftly do something unusually intelligent and patriotic, August 11th, 2011 may be marked as the day when it became necessary for the ARS to prepare to serve as guarantors of free speech during civil emergencies—responding to rogue “acts of Government,” as well.
Concerning Genachowski’s biased and limited understanding of emergency communications as reflected in his embarrassing posted statements about Japan, it is revealing that he nowhere mentions that in addition to relying on a reported 1.3 million ARS stations, the Japanese government found it necessary to issue thousands of temporary ARS licenses to further mitigate landline, broadband and wireless infrastructure collapse.
In contrast, while peddling assurances about a secure inter-agency standard P25 and “a hardened broadband,”—neither of which it can possibly deliver—the FCC has allowed the daily-proven U.S. ARS population to trend downward below 700,000. And a police veteran informs me that in California, agencies are scrambling to combine VHF licenses merely to acquire surplus cab radios!
So can we please stop all this acquiescence in mediocre EmComm, denial of persisting inter-agency breakdowns and tolerance of corruption, and demand that FCC remediate its own ‘lost decade’ of deteriorating performance keeping this country in the forefront of safe and secure communications for all? And if it cannot, barrister Genachowski needs to resign immediately in favor of a Sarnoff-quality technical visionary equal to today’s issues and challenges. That Chairman will expeditiously implement desperately needed communications policy corrections; from embracing for EmComm new research in software-defined and cognitive radio, to taking ARS lessons from Japan, and most importantly, understanding the implications of democratic warnings from San Francisco.
Stanley Jungleib
WA6LVC (ARS over 40 years)
Thought we had it beat.
Actually, Radio is NOT a First Amendment Issue
By Stanley JungleibNo CommentsAny more than is driving a car. You need a license. Otherwise you are presumed likely to hurt people due to ignorance and lack of skill—just like Limbaugh.
The indubitable reasoning instigating the Communications Act of 1934 realized that if everyone had a radio transmitter at their will, no radio system could work. Pretty simple and extremely rational: You would have a situation where all could shout, while none listen—in other words, today’s Internet. But I digress.
As a limited national resource, the nature of the radio medium does not permit of simple analogies with the public square nor freedom of the press. You can place twenty times the newspaper vending machines in a city block than you can allocate radio stations to serve it. If you prefer, fill the sidewalk with 1000 megaphones and petitioners; but you can’t just add 1000 radio stations.
So, broadcasters are obliged to maintain their limited number of competing licenses by sharing the airwaves on behalf of the public. Necessarily, not every viewpoint will get the infinite airtime it no doubt deserves. Responsibility for the public interest is not simply heaped equally upon each station. More realistically, FCC expects good faith attempts at serving the public interest largely by encouraging a general even-handedness of representative stations in a ‘market.’ Consistent with their recently tossing “the fairness doctrine,” FCC is happier seeing competing stations than forcing each to schizophrenically adopt opposing orientations to the listener’s confusion. The relevant discussion is not at the lofty heights of the Supreme Court but at the thoroughly empirical and gritty level of how broadcasters attend to their community in context with others, and in consideration of significant variation in national market traditions.
Even the police do not have ‘free speech’ on police radios, nor pilots on aviation channels. Though the mandates for the Amateur Radio Service or Citizen’s Band are different still, the principle remains the same: Free speech takes a back seat to the prescribed communication purposes of all radio Services. And most Services maintain constant lobbying to ensure the FCC receives no cause for thought about increasing their performance standards or restricting their spectrum allocations. Thus, large-scale complaint filings such as about the SuperBowl costume fiasco have been observed to make the broadcast industry abundantly nervous. For specific stations, a large complaint file can seriously complicate their license renewal.
Today’s dysfunctional FCC has not impressed anyone with responsiveness. Nevertheless, if you want to end broadcast hate-mongering save your time arguing about free speech with dittoheads, and use it to entreat your friends to file virtually daily complaints against that lard-ass, mentally- and morally-defective, excrement-luncher—this IS the internet, after all—at:
File Complaint | FCC.gov
Share this: