I think it is high time that we took a minute to consider how history will remember the present administration and how it treated the men and women who it sent to fight and die overseas. Many people have publicized the Bush administration’s callous assaults on veterans’ benefits and pay–and it’s very important to keep that in mind. But what about the simple fact that the Bush administration has simply left hundreds of thousands of soldiers to die, one by one in terror attacks, so that he could unleash an illegal, pointless war, and a disastrous, hated occupation?

Conventional wisdom is finally starting to come around; even mainstream media and Democratic Presidential hopefuls are now daring to utter mild criticisms of the senseless bloodbath into which King George has led us. But they still don’t quite get it. The standard story that keeps being repeated from the liberal side is now: O.K., so the war was wrong and we never should have blundered into Iraq. But now that we’re there, we have to stick it out and continue the occupation until some unspecified date in the future, when we’re satisfied with how Iraq looks and can finally cut out.

John Kerry, for example, has this to say:

(from Iraq – Winning the Peace on the John Kerry Campaign Website)

We can and should protect our troops and we can and should meet our obligations in Iraq. But America can and must do better.

. . .

John Kerry’s plan will show that we understand real partnership by reaching out to our allies, rebuilding international good will, and asking the UN to do what it has done well from Kosovo to East Timor by putting Iraqi governance and reconstruction under UN authority. It’s not necessary for the U.S. to go it alone on rebuilding Iraq’s institutions and meeting humanitarian needs – and we shouldn’t have to.

And so on, and so forth. The idea is that Iraqis are basically imbeciles who cannot be trusted to establish a prosperous and free society unless the United States miliary and U.N. forces (of all people!) hang around to lecture them about how to do it. The idea is also that we have to leave our soldiers to die and leave the Iraqis under the jackboots of military occupation until we can claim that we’ve managed to win the peace. That way, we won’t ever have to admit that we made a mistake, and that it cost the lives and freedom of many, many innocent Iraqis, as well as the senseless death of hundreds (perhaps thousands, by the time this is over) of U.S. troops.

It’s a bunch of damned rubbish, of course, it’s a bunch of damned rubbish that we ought to have the wisdom and the historical memory by now to recognize. Here’s how the view was skewered by–well–John Kerry, when he was younger and wiser:

(from Modern History Sourcebook: Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971)

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn’t have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can’t say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, the first President to lose a war.

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

Happy Veteran’s Day.

Minor updates have been made to the original post for clarity and removal of typographical errors.

You may or may not have noticed it already, but there’s been a bit of a change around here at Geekery Today. I’m proud to announce that recently I freed the content on these pages through a copyleft. What that means is that you can, except where I note otherwise, copy and distribute any of the works on this website, and you can also make and distribute derivative works based on them. What’s the catch? Only that the copies or derivative works you produce have to be honest, and they have to stay free. The copyleft license is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license, which requires that the original author must be given credit, and that any derivative works or reuse of the original work must also be distributed under the terms of the copyleft. (For more exact details, see the copyleft notice.)

Image from Roderick Long’s Unblog

Of course, I’m not anywhere near conceited enough to think that there’s any great demand for reproductions or derivative works based on my pedantic ramblings. My motives are much more ideological than that: I’ve done this because I don’t believe that there are any such things as intellectual property rights; I don’t think it’s possible to enforce copyright law without violating the rights of ordinary people to make peaceful use of good old-fashioned tangible property, such as pens and computers and your own brain. (If you want a good argument about why this is the case, I don’t have one on hand. Fortunately enough, Roderick Long does, in brief in Thoughtcrime, and at more length in The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights. Thank goodness for the free exchange of information!) In short, intellectual property restrictions are nothing more than State aggression on a massive scale. Worse still, they’re a form of State aggression that is getting worse every day, and, increasingly, violently stifling innovation and the progress of civilization.

In light of all this, you might think that I’ve chosen a rather odd means to my ends–trying to fight back against intellectual monopolists by placing my works under a restrictive licensing scheme that depends upon international copyright law. In fact, it’s not nearly as odd as it might initially seem. Saying that copyright laws are illegitimate is not the same as saying that nothing it’s currently used for is legitimate. It just means that none of its legitimate uses are legitimate because of a right to control your intellectual property.

For example, say that you write a brilliant philosophical essay, and send me a copy for feedback. I put white-out over your name, write my name in, and send it off to Mind. Have I done something wrong? Well, certainly—what I did was dishonest and mean. More to the point, have I done something criminal? Well, yes. But it’s not because I’ve violated some right to control "intellectual property." Rather, it’s because I’ve committed fraud—I’ve passed something off as my work when it is in fact yours. There’s no need to talk about "intellectual property rights" to deal with this, any more than there is to deal with someone who sells Tofurkey^TM as Thanksgiving turkey (or vice versa).

So what about a copyleft? Well, the terms of the license allow for free copying, distribution, performance, and creation of derivative works, without having to ask the permission of the author. So putting up a copyleft is not a restrictive use of intellectual property law; it’s a statement of the author’s intent not to use intellectual property law in aggression against peaceful reuse or creation of derivative works.

Of course, the license does add two restrictions: first, copies and derivative works have to accurately credit the original author for her work, and second, copies and derivative works also have to be distributed as free content under the terms of the copyleft.

The first restriction, however, is just a restatement of the requirement that we considered above–that the users of the information cannot commit fraud. They can’t pass off your work as somebody else’s, and they can’t pass off somebody else’s work as your own.

The second restriction is where the real genius of copylefting lies. If anyone wants to reuse the copylefted content, they also have to free whatever they copy or produce from the restrictions of traditional copyright law. But the restrictions of traditional copyright law are unjust; since enforcing them constitutes a violation of rights, enforcing a copyleft to prevent them from being enforced is like using a gun to keep innocent people from being shot–a defensive, rather than an aggressive use of force. Copylefting reverses copyrighting from within, using the illegitimate power of the State against itself to undermine the arrogated power of intellectual monopolists.

It is worth noting, though, that copylefting didn’t originate for use with the written content on webpages. It originated from the world of Free / Libre / Open Source Software. What I’m talking about here is a bit different from what they are talking about. Copylefting as I am deploying it deals with how information can be used once it is published; copylefting as it is deployed in the FLOSS world has to do with that, but it also makes specific requirements about what information should be published. GPL-style licenses allow for free reuse and modification of source code, but they require that any source code for these derived works be distributed under a copyleft. That’s copylefting in the sense that I’m using it. But they go a step further: they don’t just impose a restriction on how the source code is to be distributed if it is distributed; they also require that it actually be distributed. That’s copylefting in a different sense. While enforcement of copyright law is a violation of rights, it’s perfectly legitimate to choose to do whatever you please with your own copies of information. In world without copyright, Microsoft would still have every right to withhold their proprietary source code; a closed-source business model is not criminal.

Nevertheless, not being criminal isn’t the same thing as not being wrong. Closed-source software doesn’t violate anyone’s natural rights, but it does suck. The reasons for using FLOSS are reasons of cultural politics: FLOSS is better than closed-source because it fosters innovative use of technology and high-quality, co-operative, participatory projects. It also provides affordable access to high-quality software for underprivileged users. None of these are matters of justice (except in the extended sense of fairness or equity); but justice is not the only virtue.

In short, copylefting, or freeing content can mean one of two things. It can mean freeing information users to make whatever peaceful use they like of the copies they already have. Or it can mean making copies more freely available for information users to make innovative, peaceful uses. I think that only the first goal is enforceable; but both goals are desirable. This connects with a point that I have often made about the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism. The first sort of free content has to do with the virtues of a free market: it is a matter of the form of a free society, i.e., that the organization of society must be free rather than coerced. The second sort of free content has to do with the virtues of open, participatory institutions within the free market: it is a matter of the content of a free society, i.e., the specific organizations that people ought to choose to freely form.

Last Friday L. and I met up with some friends to go see Michael Moore, who was giving a talk in Ypsilanti. It was hilarious of course–with a protesting delegation of the Young Americans for Freedom providing spreading some unintentional extra humor outside. One of the best points that Mike made during the night was his briefly mentioning how Al Franken had succeeded where so many other liberal and Leftist commentators had failed: taking down FOX News. It didn’t happen through a bunch of whining and accusations of bias; it happened by telling the truth, making it funny, and then using their own public belligerence to reveal what collosal asses they are. Now, FOX News is just a national joke. (Albeit still a very rich and high-rated national joke.)

Of course, that doesn’t mean that there’s no role for a bit of whining and hectoring from time to time; dour pedantry provides a necessary base of information for uncovering the simple truths that wittier people tell. At least, that’s what I tell myself to help justify my own project. In that spirit, I’d like to note the following:

The fact is, daily life at FNC is all about management politics. I say this having served six years there – as producer of the media criticism show, News Watch, as a writer/producer of specials and (for the last year of my stay) as a newsroom copy editor. Not once in the 20+ years I had worked in broadcast journalism prior to Fox – including lengthy stays at The Associated Press, CBS Radio and ABC/Good Morning America – did I feel any pressure to toe a management line. But at Fox, if my boss wasn’t warning me to be careful how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan (You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him.), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean (You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don’t get the last word.)

. . .

But the roots of FNC’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.

The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration’s point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious – information on who is where and what they’ll be covering – there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors’ copy. For instance, from the March 20th memo: There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan’s remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are with the Iraqi people. One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought. Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only food for thought, but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General’s remarks as utterly incomprehensible?

The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox’s newsroom personnel into action – or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be whining about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent’s report on the day’s fighting – simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.

These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management’s politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management’s point of view, and, in case they’re not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them.

Let me repeat a bit of that again:

They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the bible.

There is a story that, when Nixon made his historic trip to China in 1972, he and Kissinger watched as Zhou Enlai was presented with a folderful of papers, which he leafed through, and handed back with a nod. When Kissinger asked what had happened, the translator told him that Zhou had just approved the layout of the next day’s People’s Daily. Nixon, it is said, muttered, I’d like to rearrange a front page now and then.

Need I make the obvious point? Don’t let anyone tell you that there’s been no political progress in the past 30 years.

This is Roy Moore. Roy Moore recently got in trouble because he defied a federal court order to move a Ten Commandments monument that he placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. Roy Moore is suspended from the Alabama Supreme Court, and is facing a trial from the Court of the Judiciary which could permanently remove him from the bench.

Roy Moore also has a huge forehead.

If Chief Justice Moore had only made use of his God-given endowments, he could have avoided this whole mess. He could have sidestepped the court battle by removing the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda—and then having the Ten Commandments tattooed on his humongous forehead.

Wherever Roy Moore would go, the Ten Commandments would be there, showing forth the divine law from his lofty brow. The removal of the monument would satisfy the federal court order, but Roy Moore and his supporters would have the last laugh. No court could possibly rule that Roy Moore should be banned from sitting on the court because of a First Amendment-protected tattoo. And would even Judge Myron Thompson be so rude as to order that a gentleman cover his forehead with a hat while indoors? I think not.

Thank goodness that Roy Moore didn’t recognize this in time. Here’s to two months of freedom from theocratic rule in Alabama!

One of the favorite satirical devices of Karl Kraus, an acerbic critic writing in the last days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was to simply print verbatim quotes from prominent Viennese figures, without any additional commentary. Sadly, the tactic has only become more necessary since the end of the Great War–particularly within the discursive world of televised debate.

(link thanks to Tom Tomorrow)

Hannity & Colmes: Debate on Impeaching Bush

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: While inspectors in Iraq continue searching for weapons of mass destruction, some Americans are outraged at the president that so far no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Our next guest thinks that’s grounds for impeachment.

We’re joined by the publisher of Harper’s magazine, John MacArthur, who’s with us. And the author of the best selling book, Treason, Ann Coulter is with us.

It’s not even really intellectually worth discussing. After reading your article, my first reaction is to bubble and fizz and get mad. My second reaction is this is beyond silly, you know, but you really believe this?

JOHN MACARTHUR, HARPER’S MAGAZINE: Why do you invite me to go on the show if you think it’s beyond discussion?

HANNITY: Because Alan wanted you on. That’s why.

MACARTHUR: OK. But clearly…

HANNITY: It wasn’t my first choice.

MACARTHUR: Clearly, if the president of the United States has lied on a grand scale to Congress…

HANNITY: Name me one lie. Name me one lie.

MACARTHUR: Let me finish.

HANNITY: If you’re going to call him a liar, back it up.

MACARTHUR: I will, yes. I’ll talk about what he said to Bush…Blair at the press conference on September 7 at Camp David. He said…he cited a non-existent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that Saddam was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon and infamously said, What more evidence do we need? And from there…

HANNITY: We don’t have time for a speech.

MACARTHUR: … we moved on to aluminum tubes. We moved on to connections with Al Qaeda.

HANNITY: Did you call…

MACARTHUR: We talked about an atomic bomb threat that did not exist. Sean, this didn’t exist. This didn’t exist.

HANNITY: This isn’t a speech time.

MACARTHUR: You need me to give you the facts.

HANNITY: I’ve got to ask you, did you call for the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

MACARTHUR: I wasn’t interested in the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

HANNITY: You weren’t interested? So you’re only interested in the impeachment of Republicans?

MACARTHUR: No, no, no, no. I mean, it’s…Listen, I can’t stand Bill Clinton.

HANNITY: Did Bill Clinton lie to the American people?

MACARTHUR: Yes.

HANNITY: Why do you have one standard for him and another standard for a Republican?

MACARTHUR: I have the same standard for both of them.

HANNITY: No, you don’t. Because you didn’t write an article asking for his impeachment.

MACARTHUR: Actually, what I’m trying to tell you is that if you, as Senator Graham put it a few months ago very intelligently, if you apply the same standard to Bush that was applied to Clinton, then it’s impeachable. He should be impeached. Absolutely.

HANNITY: Ann…

MACARTHUR: Because as Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist Papers, this has to do with the immediate consequences and harm done to society. What could be greater harm than the deaths of American soldiers…

HANNITY: Excuse me. The immediate consequences…Sir, you have yet to…

MACARTHUR: … in Iraq, who have been sent to Iraq on a fraudulent pretext, utterly…

HANNITY: My patience is really running thin.

MACARTHUR: … and they’re dying.

HANNITY: Could you please be quiet, because there are other people on the panel?

MACARTHUR: OK. Sure.

HANNITY: The idea here, he cannot give a specific example.

MACARTHUR: I did give a specific example.

HANNITY: He’s full of crap.

MACARTHUR: I did give an example.

HANNITY: And this is just, hatred of George W. Bush now has become a sport for these guys.

Ann Coulter?

ANN COULTER, TREASON AUTHOR: First of all, I agree with you. I hate to treat this seriously by responding, but the particular lie that he cited as his leading, case in chief of the president lying, yes, Bush cited something like the Atomic Energy Commission. He misspoke.

HANNITY: Right.

COULTER: It was the International Institute for Strategic Studies or something. He misspoke about the name of the institute.

MACARTHUR: No, he didn’t. He didn’t.

COULTER: It’s my turn now. You stop that.

MACARTHUR: OK.

COULTER: Point two, as you know, I’m something of an authority on the grounds for impeachment. And this is precisely the sort of thing that impeachment is not for. I mean, it’s not for policy disagreements. It’s certainly not for something that is in the president’s prerogative, such as waging war, for example.

To take a decision that I think is appalling, but is not grounds for impeachment. Bill Clinton sending a small Cuban boy back to a Bolshevik monster in Cuba. That is not grounds for impeachment, because that is part of the president’s authority.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Ann…

COULTER: You don’t impeach for disagreements over policy. It is for misbehavior; that is what misdemeanor means. It’s for bad decorum.

COLMES: Ann, we didn’t let Rick make a speech. You can’t make a speech, either.

COULTER: Well, actually, you did.

COLMES: I know it’s hard, but if you look to your left, I know that’s difficult.

Look, I don’t think he should be impeached. I disagree with Rick about that.

COULTER: That’s very big of you.

COLMES: Thank you. I think I’d rather put our time and effort toward 2004, and just like I don’t think Bill Clinton should have been impeached, I don’t.

But I understand Rick’s point. There are many Americans who increasingly seem to feel that we were not leveled with, for whatever reason, whether it was Bush who did it or people in his administration who gave him false information.

He did say the IAEA reported that Iraq was six months away from a nuclear capability, which turned out not to be true. It’s a scare tactic.

COULTER: He got the name of the institute wrong.

COLMES: Saying I misspoke, and they said they misspoke about a number of things. Misspoke about uranium. They misspoke about tubes, misspoke about how many things.

MACARTHUR: Right.

COLMES: Misspoke lets him off the hook?

COULTER: No. Liberals don’t want to fight terrorism. You want there to be lots of 9/11’s.