Lessig

Thank you, Governor for speaking out against deregulation of the media. It may sound like a doomsday scenario, but I think everyone can imagine a world with Faux News Channel and Clear Channel controlling the airwaves.

Thank you for addressing the FCC issue. This is an important issue. I will be proud to call you my President!

Governor,

It's a privelege to be able to discuss these issues with you, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity.

I agree that the FCC-sanctioned media consolidation is a threat, but there will always be other information channels. In fact, most interest groups tend to simply flock to channels that reflect their own views rather than search out any truly independent medium - this is the sole reason for FOX News vast success, not any FCC actions per se. With former Vice President Al Gore proposing a liberal cable news channel, the trend is reflected on the opposite side of the partisan divide and there's no intrinsic reason that media consolidation needs to be a threat to liberal ideas alone.

A much greater threat, IMHO is that of copyright abuse. As you are no doubt aware, Professor Lessig has been extensively discussing how copyright extensions pose a serious threat to the inventive engine of society, on this blog and in his book, "The End of Ideas" (which I assume you've read). Today the DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, tomorrow the Thou Shalt Not Reverse Engineer Act and the end of the public domain as we know it.

What is your position on the threat to the public domain? And what policies do you intend to support to address that threat?

Regards
Aziz H. Poonawalla
Dean Nation 2004 blog http://dean2004.blogspot.com

I think the internet is the only place where power has shifted away from the central brokers (corporations and people with money) towards the average man. One of the places you see this most acutely is in the widespread theft of intellectual property. Record companies colluded to set prices for years... is it any wonder that today we have a generation of kids that don't see the harm in 'sticking it to the record companies'?

Anyway, that's a tangent I don't need to continue... The point is, THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET!! This great technology has allowed us to organize in unprecedented ways. This technology combined with the Dr.'s message will for the first time, directly impact the race for the Presidency. And for once, the people will win. The internet will do what McCain-Fiengold didn't - couldn't - do. And hopefully, it'll be the internet that keeps the government honest moving forward...

I think the internet is the only place where power has shifted away from the central brokers (corporations and people with money) towards the average man. One of the places you see this most acutely is in the widespread theft of intellectual property. Record companies colluded to set prices for years... is it any wonder that today we have a generation of kids that don't see the harm in 'sticking it to the record companies'?

Anyway, that's a tangent I don't need to continue... The point is, THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET!! This great technology has allowed us to organize in unprecedented ways. This technology combined with the Dr.'s message will for the first time, directly impact the race for the Presidency. And for once, the people will win. The internet will do what McCain-Fiengold didn't - couldn't - do. And hopefully, it'll be the internet that keeps the government honest moving forward...

I am so relieved that we at last have a political leader willing to talk about issues of liberty, equality and justice invoking the names of our Founders, their revolutionary ideas and optimistic outlook. I ask people, when was the last time we heard a leader talking about liberty and freedom using the words of Thomas Jefferson or James Mdaison?

I am also so happy that someone who wants to lead our great nation has taken the time to read the words of our Founders and consider what they mean TODAY. Their ideas are not something we read, and keep, in a book. Freedom is for everyone.

Love ya Doc!

Right on target as usual.

Thank you for taking the time in your busy schedule to post your thoughts on this blog.

Ack sorry for the tripple post my first response to a blog and I screw it up!

"How about giving Mr. Lessig an apointment to the FCC or DOJ? Either one, and we’ll see the media conglomerates tremble in fear."

How about to the Supreme Court?

Excellent first blog, Governor Dean.

I agree with the Governor, but this statement is baby steps. Can you speak with any more specificity and detail about the relevant issues Gov. Dean? Most of the candidates running are also against the Powell media ownership rules and have said so. What's different about you? This is a very educated readership on these isssues, and what's the point of guest blogging if you don't say something that we find truly informative?

Governor Dean,
I was disappointed with this posting as it seems to identify a problem without proposing any solution.

Do you believe this issue should be addressed legislatively or by alternate appointees? If the former, do you believe this can be accomplished without altering the balance of power in Congress? If the later, what is to stop this issue from becoming a pendulum that swings back and forth depending on the party in power?

If as one of the other posters was accurate when you called for re-regulation, I would be interested in seeing a list of all industries you believe are under-regulated.

Thank you for speaking with us this week, Gov. Dean. As you may know, many small internet service providers and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) are being priced out of existence by incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) who have monopoly control over local telecommunications infrastructure. This is a key component of the process you describe above, so I am curious as to what specific policies you would propose to increase competition in the internet access market.

Dr. Dean,

Thank you for speaking on such an important issue. As always you hit the nail on the head. I would much rather be talking about funding education and equal rights for all Americans, but we can not be fighting those battles and the 3 critical fights over democracy that are occuring right now at the same time. The second is the patirot act and the third is not having a ballot paper trail.

My one criticism is not pointing us to an action. If there is not currently a capwiz.com (or other similar service) form-to-fax set up on this issue, then you could create one through www.deanforamerica.com. The last thing we need is to sit around lamenting and not taking action.

For those who are asking for specifics, Dr. Dean has been more specific on the topic in other settings. He has said that, as President, his major role will be in FCC appointments, and he would ensure that his FCC appointmentees have similar concerns. He doesn't seem to believe that it's the President's role to micromanage the process, but rather to make intelligent appointments that will work towards reversing the damage.

An equal, if not greater, threat to political speech than media concentration is the 1987 death of the Fairness Doctrine at the hands of the FCC. Why should licensees of the public's frequencies get to decide which political views they will and will not carry? This decision was never ratified by the Supremes under First Amendment principles, only by the DC circuit on the ground that the FCC's decision that the Fairness Doctrine no longer served the public interest was niether arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion.

Why not bring back the Fairness Doctrine ensuring access and equal time for all candidates to public office? A Dean Administration would do a great service to the cause of democracy and deal a blow to the overwhelming advantage of monied interests in political campaigns and foil the stranglehold commericial media exerts on the scope of public debate.

Connections anyone?

And no one seems to be mentioning the almost 800,000 letters sent to the FCC complaining about this new adventure in de-reg...

Which sounds like the grass roots to me.

Congress, luckily, appears to have taken note. Let's hope that they aren't only in it for appearance's sake. I'm told Randy Michaels (CEO of Clear Channel) is *not* the most popular guy on the Hill this hear; maybe there's hope.

The corporations taking over the media, of course, and making it impossible for the average citizen to be heard is the private parallel of the companion -- and more insidious -- public-sector problem: corporations being given *way* too much power in the voting arena.

Direct Recording Electronic voting machines which do not produce a countable (and re-countable; hey, I live in Florida :-) physical ballot are unacceptably misdesigned. Far more than you ever wanted to know about this is at the website of Penn State professor (and electronic voting Doctorate) Rebecca Mercuri.

Especially in close elections, these sorts of things are going to be crucial -- and the resulting partisan bickering from failing to fix them early enough may well do more damage to America than November 4, 2000... or September 11, 2001.

Doctor? Your thoughts?
-- j
Communications Wonk
Steering Committee
Pinellas for Dean
Pinellas County, FL

Should media using public property (radio frequencies, telphone poles, satellites) be able to ban political ads they disagree with? e.g. anti-war ads were rejected by major media outlets last winter.

I find myself here by having followed Governor Dean after reading comments at slashdot and on blogforamerica.com.

Are there experts participating here who could neatly summerize deeper implications of media consolidation and cyberspace and computer-based freedom issues so that some of us who have been preoccupied with other topics can learn?

As an aside to the experts, I lived in China for several years during the late 1980s. It was interesting to me to discover, as I understood my interlocutors, that they have a long cultural history of regarding what we call intellectual property as communal property. Partly because of this tradition, ancient authorship tends to be ambiguous. Artists would begin by spending years copying the masters. And people felt little compunction in copying American-made software, etc., particularly when also considering economic disparities. Any thoughts?

Grins and best wishes,

Dan Chay
Alaska

I worked in journalism right after college; now I'm in law school and I feel better about my profession. What does that say about the state of our media? It's very upsetting to me that countries with no First Amendment and much more restrictive libel laws have a healthier press, more willing to challenge the government on serious issues, than we do. And media consolidation seems to be the biggest single factor in this.

Fortunately, the internet came along to save us just as TV and radio news went from bad to worse. There's a famous remark by someone--A.J. Liebling, maybe?--about how freedom of the press only helps people who own a press. Now almost anyone can. That's why the blogs are so encouraging, though with some exceptions there's not much actual reporting on them. (Understandable, reporting takes time and money.) So this idea of allowing internet providers to discriminate against content is very dangerous.

As for steps to take about the FCC, write to your Congressman! People on both sides of the aisle have raised questions about the vote; this one's not over yet. www.moveon.org has form letters and addresses.

And thank you, Governor Dean--your campaign has me feeling more excited than I have ever been about a presidential candidate, and more hopeful about where this country is going than I've felt in years.

Richard Bennett:

"Bravo for you - choice is confusing, and it’s much better to have a Big Brother in Washington telling us how to think."

You are absolutely right to insist, however ironically, that choice and competition in media are essential to the functioning of our democracy. But how would it be any better to have a Big Brother in the boardroom of a corporate media monopoly? I am a strong believer in free markets, but I am concerned about more than companies' freedom to buy and sell each other. In the media market, I am concerned about the actual freedom of citizens to hear, speak, and be heard, all of which are diminished as more media outlets are controlled by fewer and larger companies. Greater profits for media companies clearly lie along the path of greater consolidation; so the invisible hand, in this case, is pushing in what I think we can agree is the wrong direction, toward less choice and less freedom. If you can't stomach the idea of government as a check against this natural tendency of media to consolidate, what do you think we should do do instead? Cross our fingers and hope it doesn't happen?

I think we should consider donating to the Troll Goal fund just like we do on Dean's regular blog. I plan to do some $$$ to Dean's campaign right now in Richard Bennett's name. Thanks Richard for feeding the troll!

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/TR?pg=personal&fr_id=1090&px=1217779

BAD TROLL, BAD TROLL.... Oh, I'm sorry, several more donations for Dean just came in.... THANKS TROLL!

"A donation a day, keeps the Trolls away!"

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/TR?pg=personal&fr_id=1090&px=1217779

Posted by Sam in San Diego at July 14, 2003 08:04 PM

Those of you that criticize Dean, I just ask you to remember a couple of things. How many 50-60 year old men have even a basic understanding of the internet? And, more to the point, how many have found an incredibly effective way to use the biggest benefit of the internet (i.e., you don't need to be a megacorp to make a splash) to get the word out to 60K+ people and get them energized? My Dad is Dean's age, Kerry's age, etc., and I still have to help him weekly to do basic stuff. He probably would think DMCA is an illegal drug. I applaud anyone of that generation with the courage to risk making a few missteps to try to reach out to our generation in the most technically advanced and difficult way for him. Al Gore may claim to have invented the internet but every major candidate was around 40 or older when the internet took off. In my experience, this is a man who can learn quickly. That makes him a very saleable candidate to the "internet crowd."

I think we start with the biggest and most basic threat to the internet: freedom of speech. A-s-h and friends (no I won't spell his name out, thank you). Break it down, everything *has* to start here. No more random wiretaps of political enemies, no more bs about the unruliness of the internet being a breeding ground for terrorism. He is right - it is the only mass medium where someone can reach everyone with their message cheaply, which is both good and bad but is freedom of speech in its pureist form...currently its only pure form I would say.

There's lots of other problems. DMCA which lots of hosts and billing companies seem to ignore in my experience, and for websites that accept credit cards, draconian rules coming down on high from VISA and Mastercard which are enforceable only because of a huge corporate monopoly which is ironically a nonprofit.

The things I see in Dean - and I don't necessarily agree with him 100% on all issues - revolve around the fact he's not part of a machine. No other electable candidate can really say this. He's against corporate government, against restricting freedom of speech in the name of the "war on terrorism"...and from what I have seen on his blog the campaign responds to people's suggestions directly in many cases. I can't think of the last time the government responded to me.

Dean isn't an internet prodigy like a lot of us. But the fact he has been able to learn to use the internet effectively to get his message out speaks volumes. It impressed me, and I believe that unlike the DNC elite he recognizes that it's time to stop giving up on the younger generation and speak to them.

-doug

Why is it that when people rail against media consolidation, Rupert Murdoch and Clear Channel are the only examples brought up? What about AOL-Time Warner? Are they smaller or less influental?

Richard Bennet writes:

"Much better to have a Big Brother in Washington telling us how to think."

Of course, this leads to the question, much better than what? If the choice is between Big Brother in Government vs. Big Brother in the Corporation, I'll take Government.

In a market that is completely consolidated, the Corporation, unlike Government, has no accountability to the people for what they do. If they abuse their power, the citizenry has no alternative. In other words, while the citizenry can vote GWB out of the Oval Office, they cannot vote Rupert Murdoch out of his Chief Executive Office.

If you look at Public Media in other Western Democracies (CBC, BBC, and even NPR), you'll find a media that owes more allegience to the public welfare than the bottom line. As a result, you'll find these media to be more critical of our government than our increasingly centrailized corporate media is of ours.

Now, Richard and his ilk will probably cite Pravda in some follow up post, but again, this is just a red herring. We are more likely to get to a Pravda-like propanda-machine by the continuing centralization of a corporate media afraid to jeopardize its profits by challenging a corporate-friendly administration than we would through more diversified media or more public media.

Kilroy Was Here

Bill Safire, like any number of other journalists, is protecting his own income. One of the fears aroused by streamlined media operations is that they'll employ fewer journalists. I think we can all understand that.

Internet newbies, the vocabulary word of the day is "troll"; the shorthand definition is "conservative", and it's an attempt to silence diverse views by demonizing their authors. Don't pay it any mind.

Doug, I'm a 50-60-year-old white, heterosexual male, and I *think* I understand the Internet pretty well, even though I didn't invent it. (OK, I did invent the twisted-pair Ethernet standard and the WiFi MAC protocol, but those things aren't essential to the Internet, not at all.)

Perhaps I should just leave this high-tech stuff to the kids.

Richard,
No, troll does not mean conservative, although trolls tend to be conservatives on Dean's blogs. A troll is someone who is being rude.

Richard-

I wasn't suggesting there aren't tons of tech-savvy guys your age. I'm sure there are. But it's unreasonable to expect someone who was 40 when the internet was invented to be an instant expert on all subjects related to the internet. I'm of the "kids" generation and every day I find a new angle that I didn't expect. (Speaking as a 31 year old kid)

The internet is a fluid and volatile medium. A lot of the difficulties facing it now though are easily translateable to other mediums in broad strokes. Privacy being one. Spam being another. The EU has taken a sensible approach to dealing with these issues; the US has not, preferring to promote guillotine politics including automatic sentences for spam and dismiss privacy on the internet.

The problem the internet has come up against is most of the guys in charge are quite set in their ways and probably use a computer for e-mail at best if at all. We're talking mainstream white upper class America here. They get p/od because of porn spam in e-mail so they try to enact a law to imprison spammers but to them spam is all the same, no concept of opt-in, double opt-in, or any of the complexities related to every issue here. I use this as an example because the EU's own double-opt-in standard came from an American researcher.

They enable filters across the board which block ERA, politically incorrect, or sex education sites. They insist on holding ISPs responsible for things they can't possibly control because they have no concept of how the internet really works. They just want to slam the door on free speech with filters and laws. Much like Saudi Arabia.

My big point was Dean isn't old at heart in my view. He has passion, intelligence, and is capable of learning things. His staff responds to suggestions on their blog. He's the only candidate to build his base from the ground up using the internet.

Do we really want another corporate presidency? Do we really want someone who thinks there ought to be limits to freedom of speech (Bush quote)?

-doug

Dan Chay: That's a very big question; you could write a book to answer it... and Professor Lessig has already done so a couple of times, actually.

As I see it the problems boil down to increasing control of both the sources and flow of information, and of the content of that information, by wealthy interests. We already see big corporations like ClearChannel taking over more and more media outlets and controlling them more and more tightly, and that trend could spread to the internet as media companies merge with telecommunication companies and turn the wires that carry our data from common carriers into "information services", over which they can exercise editorial control. And as for content, copyrights and patents continue to increase in both duration and scope of what they control: the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) gives copyright holders the power to decide *how* you watch a movie that you've bought, the Bono act stretches the duration of that power to nearly a century, and patents have become applicable to mathematical algorithms and human genes.

The impact of concentrated corporate ownership of media on political speech and expression, and the potential impact of a more controlled internet, is fairly obvious. Less obvious is the impact of intellectual property laws on innovation, art, and cultural development.

A freewheeling atmosphere of ideas flowing back and forth is the best way for technological innovation to occur; when a new basic technology like the internet comes along, people rapidly find new and useful things to do with it and improve on one another's work. But then they begin filing patents for things that are novel and nonobvious only because the technology itself is new and unfamiliar to patent officers, and waiting for someone else to come along and invent the same obvious thing so they can slap them with a lawsuit. It creates a chilling effect that those of us in the industry can already feel today, and I fear it will get worse.

Then there's art and culture. My personal favorite example in this arena is our familiar depiction of Santa Claus, which would not have entered the public domain until 1977 if today's copyright law had existed when Thomas Nast was drawing him for the first time. Many thousands of beloved children's books, movies and pictures, not to mention happy memories of visiting Santa Claus at the shopping mall, would probably never have come into existence, and our culture would be very, very different when December rolled around. The lengthening and broadening of copyright protection may be strangling in the cradle some aspect of American culture that would have been just as important to our descendants in 2100 as Santa Claus was to us when we were growing up.

We were lucky to have a rich public domain; we owe it to our children and their children to see that their public domain is just as rich, if not richer.

Copyrights and patents are good things, in moderation; they provide incentives that drive innovation. Rolling back regulations that stifle innovation can be a positive thing too, and lead to a big burst of creativity. But it's possible to have too much of any good thing, and that's where we stand today: these tools that should have increased innovation are instead threatening to stifle it.

A balance is needed between the public interest and the various interests of artists, publishers, telecommunications companies and broadcasters, and things have gotten badly out of balance today. We need to bring the balance back, by either reversing the deregulation of media ownership OR increasing the deregulation of spectrum so that, one way or the other, monopoly is harder to achieve; by ensuring that our cables and phone lines be common carriers and not tools of increasing oligopoly; by protecting the public domain and fair use rights, and ensuring that patents are not improvidently granted.

it’s unreasonable to expect someone who was 40 when the internet was invented to be an instant expert on all subjects related to the internet

Dude, the Internet was invented in the 70s, and the World Wide Computer Web in the early 90s, so we're not talking "instant expert" about people who finally learned how to operate a keyboard in only ten short years.

Don't be such a bigot about your age; the Internet was invented by people in my age group, most of them white, heterosexual males with no particular political orientation. If you don't like us a group, then leave us alone and go invent your own network.

Still waiting on that Liberia thing.

While the proposal to re-regulate the media is interesting, I still wonder if there's another way to achieve the goal of open access to both broadcasting and internet access? If one reads Lessig's "Code and.." we find that there are many ways to regulate behavior. He also mentions that the more indirect the regulation, the more unintended consequences one will have.

Instead of ownership limits perhaps we need to institute definite rules that enforce exactly the goals that are desired.

So, what law/regulation would you propose to congress and the FCC to insure that we have local content and voices while limiting centralized control?

Speaking of censorship, the Dixie Chicks are actually doing fine, selling lots of (copyrighted) records and selling out their concerts, but that right-wing fascist Michael Savage is getting what he deserves, don’t you think?

» posted by Richard Bennett on Jul 14 03 at 4:35 PM

I just want to be clear about this. Are you saying that the Chicks saying that they are embarassed by President Bush is no different then Michael Savage telling someone to go get aides and die?

Richard,

Stop arguing a senseless point. I'm well aware the internet was invented, not in 1970s but I believe in 1964 - but unless you are DOD, a professor or a serious hacker then for all intensive purposes it became popular with Netscape I believe around '92, and I (grrr kicking myself) passed an opportunity as a naive young guy to buy stock in Netscape. I have been online since 94.

Sure it's taken off great since then. It's still for MOST people barely ten years old or less. For popular use I mean which in this country is what we are talking about. It is the single most important thing for freedom of speech in probably a century, and every day practically I deal with issues a more technologically interested admin could work to resolve, namely, copyright violations, spam and credit card monopolies.

Nonetheless, the point you keep eluding is that for once someone actually is trying to bridge the gap between your generation and ours at its widest point - technology. Find me twenty average American males in their 50s and 60s, working typical jobs with a wife and two kids, who use the internet for more than e-mail and a little web browsing. You've seized on this because you think it will distract from my argument by portraying me as an ageist. I am anything but. I have helped lots of people who are to use a term is despise "newbies" of all ages to get more internet savvy. Keep arguing this and I will ignore your posts. Argue my main point if you want to.

-doug

To be fair, there is a bit of a culture clash here - the dean bloggers, lovers of the Troll Goal $$$ maker, and the more used-to-harsh-debate lessig bloggers, including the venerable Richard Bennett.

Richard Bennett is not a troll, he's a long time (or at least as long as I've been here) member of the lessig blog community. He provides a much needed, though often disputed, conservative outlook on the ideas that Prof. Lessig posts about, and although he is much maligned, this blog would not be quite as good without him.

I urge Dean-bloggers to remember that this is a forum traditionally rich in debate, with few people that entirely agree with one another. Do not be surprised that the nature of this blog is quite different from blogforamerica - people frequent this blog typically because they have read Lessig's books and/or are interested in copyright reform or at least in knowing what the copyright reform camp is up to ;)

If you are new to this blog, please take a minute to visit this website:
http://www.eldred.cc/
Prof. Lessig argued Eldred v. Ashcroft in the Supreme Court, in which he challenged the Sony Bono Copyright Extention act. The Court rejected Lessig's claims, effectively saying that any copyright reform must be initiated by Congress. The Eldred site now hosts an ongoing petition which will hopefully initiate just that.

Again, if you are a visitor from the Dean blog, please take some time and read over the Eldred Petition. In turn, we will certainly take time to actively engage Dr. Dean's ideas and positions.

Dana,
Thank you for explaining the culture clash. I hear and see enough angry, antagonistic discussions elsewhere so I will leave.

I support Howard Dean for President in 2004.

• Amen to Michael Bryan re: Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine. Equal air time is about diversity of views.
• Amen to Ashworth re: physical proof of vote. Today's technology makes Florida's 2000 ballot problems look good.
• Amen to Alison S re: Lobby Capital Hill Now as a byproduct of DeanForAmerica. Please adopt MoveOn style persuasion on key issues. Along the way, give visibility to those fighting to keep or get House and Senate seats.
• Amen to Carlton Nettleton re: California's budget shortfall lies with (a) over deregulation of energy companies, (b) collusion by those firms to game the system, and (c) Bush choosing to have his administration intervene on behalf of those firms.
• Amen to Jonathan in GA re: Bush insisting that copying files for personal use is theft, defining more people as criminals than voted for him in the last election.
• Thanks to Richard Bennet for provoking the conversation. I enjoy your blog, btw. It forces me to questions my/your dogma to better understand the issues. The freedom to disagree in public should be protected, right?

Where do you stand on...

• Fair Use? Lots of LessigBlog regulars can clarify the issues which, imho, comes down to when am I free to copy a TV show to videotape for personal, non-commercial use? Opponents say copyright controls should extend into every use, including personal ones.
• Library censorship? Laws passed require all Federally funded libraries to put censorbots on all publicly accessible Internet stations. Supporters say protect the children.
• Student / Child Speech rights? While laws say we can execute children, minors don't have adult rights to commerce, speech, or privacy. Is this correct? What would you change, if anything?
• Medical Privacy? Does the new HIPPA law go far enough to protect patient privacy? How fast should we adopt Europe's more expansive definition of privacy rights?

Indeed, consider Mr. Bennett in the way baseball players view swinging a heavier bat before hitting...it's tough practice. It's practice for arguing with people who's opinions on matters actually count. The hard part is realizing that he's putting more effort into arguing with you than actually listening to you, or trying to understand where you're coming from. So all in all, not a very *good* arguer, just an energetic one. good luck.

Dr. Dean,

I'm going to be blunt. I hope you don't mind.

Most of the people that regularly read this blog are up to speed on issues of copyright law, so I hope this particular post was meant to be an introduction to, and not the body of, your position on the media.

Media consolidation is a big problem, and it has been ever since the early days of television. Three major networks carried most of the TV programs, and the only other sources of information were the town paper and the radio. Nowadays, it has of course gotten far worse. All aspects of the media have been subjected to consolidation after deregulation--and each time we have a Bush recession, struggling companies get swallowed up.

The most significant part of this problem is the fact that these companies are themselves given eternal life--they can only be killed by the market. They have no natural life span, and they have been foolishly given the same rights as people were granted under the 14th Amendment.

Last March (or was it April?), I talked to you about a plan to abolish term limits on corporate charters and to protect American entrepreneurs by placing protective tariffs on multinational corporations--not states--that had documented human rights violations. Your response was that something had to be done and that you were going to talk to some friends of yours in law about the viability of the plan. It's my hope that Dr. Lessig was one of these friends.

At any rate, I know the campaign trail has left you ridiculously busy, but I'd like some answers, and this blog is a perfect forum to give them.

I plan on caucusing for you in Iowa, by the way.

~Eddie

But, from Richard’s remark regarding his bruised ego, I think that vanity more than ideals are the motivation to his message.

My ego, dear one, is pretty stout, so you needn't worry about it. The point is that NPR/PBS/The News Hour exercises a heavy hand of censorship to spin the news a certain way, and I've seen this at work at first hand. It's my experience that Fox is more accomodating to liberal views, and this is partly driven by my experience where they asked me to debate Neil Cavuto on Martha Stewart. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes of a news gathering operation that the average citizen isn't aware of (sometime ask me about Daniel Schorr and Lowell Weicker during the Watergate hearings).

The number one issue for all voters in these times of focus groups and polling has got to be whether these candidates believe the things they say or are just parroting the material their handlers give them. Ex: Dean tells the NAACP he's against racial profiling. Can Dean defend this position to the families of the 9/11 victims who just might be happier today if there had been a little closer scrutiny of Arab males in airports on 9/11?

That's the test of character, not just sucessfully doing the serial pandering game that they all do.