PulpLit.net

As everyone knows by now, it was revealed in late May that the Bush administration had received numerous, if relatively nonspecific, indications that al Quaeda, a terrorist organization led by Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, was planning an attack on America. There was a report that planes might be used as suicide missiles. One agent even informed his superiors that Arabs with possible links to al Quaeda were training to fly airplanes in Florida. John Ashcroft, one of many who were aware of the dangers, released no information but, in July 2001, quietly stopped flying commercial airliners. The administration actually gave the airlines a vague danger warning last March but, apparently, didn’t go far enough.

But I am not writing another liberal accusation of negligence. David Horowitz has rightly pointed out that the fault lies as much with Clinton’s Democratic administration and its own negligent behavior as with Bush’s (though it does not rest entirely on the Democrats, the charge that Horowitz predictably levies). Both the Democrats and the American public have treated the issue with a kind of understanding that makes the Bush administration’s bullying responses and counter-accusations seem overly-defensive.

But what concerns me much more is the information that was released shortly after the “Pre-9/11″ flare-up. VP Dick Cheney, after blasting Democrats on Thursday with a paranoid rant about their supposed accusations of negligence (very few of which were actually being made), told the American public that it is “certain” that al Quaeda will attack the US again.

Dear Mr. Cheney: Um, yeah, we know that. Duh. Thanks, Dad.

Suddenly, senators, congressmen, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and were on television warning us that an attack is “inevitable,” and that terrorists will “not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction.” The administration pulls this scare card whenever the media or anyone else begins to question it or its moves. “Don’t you know there’s a war on?” they keep reminded the American public. But the move may have come a bit too quick this time, revealing the move for the cheap ploy that it is. We haven’t advanced beyond yellow on Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge’s silly color chart. In fact, administration officials admitted that the reports of increased al Quaeda activity were, at least in part, politically motivated. It is this that may hurt the administration more than the revelations of its knowledge prior to September 11. This talk of inevitable attacks so soon after the scandal began has cost the Bush administration a great deal of credibility - more than the scandal itself. Furthermore, Mueller all but admitted that the US was pretty powerless to stop such attacks. This is actually pretty fair; it’s the truth, for once. People are probably going to die from terrorist attacks. The best the US can do, in my opinion, is to work hard to prevent weapons of mass destruction from reaching terrorist hands. An ideal, but currently impractical, method would be to get Russia to agree to end all nuclear work, then for both the U.S., Russian to scrap every single last nuclear missile they have. This gets rid of more than 90% of the nuclear missiles in the world. Then, destroy every last ounce of anthrax, smallpox &c., keeping only weak samples for the creation of vaccines. Stopping terrorism begins at home, not in Iran or Iraq. Russia will end its relations with Iran if the US helps Russia economically and shows its willingness not to share its own nuclear resources with other countries or alliances, such as NATO.

Of course, none of this will ever happen. The Green party isn’t running this country or Russia - both have conservative governments filled with former Cold Warriors. The recent, much-trumpeted agreement between Bush and Putin to reduce nuclear weapons is actually a much weaker agreement than one that had been arranged previously - it will result in more mothballed missiles, but fewer destroyed ones.

But I digress. There may be some truth to the administration’s claim that there is a greater risk of attacks right now. If that’s true, the American public deserves to know. But by “wagging the dog,” or distracting the public with military-related issues whenever the Democrats grow a little bold, the Bush administration risks a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario that will actually prove more dangerous in the long run.

More significantly, this is a very sinister form wagging the dog. There’s Cheney, bellowing to Americans that they could be killed at any time. Scaring people to ensure their submission? This seems like a subtle form of “terrorism” itself. I realize this is a big and rather hyperbolic suggestion - that Cheney is deliberately scaring the public to advance his administration’s agenda. Such diabolic thinking may not be an intentional strategy, but I’d be surprised if it weren’t in the back of Cheney’s mind, or those of the GOP strategists. I’m not trying to weaken the force of the word “terrorism” by using it in irrelevant contexts. I’m simply trying to show just how reprehensible the behavior of the administration is right now.

We should not to submit to these “scare tactics.” We will all die someday. To passively submit to leaders whose actions and decisions you don’t agree with out of fear is not only cowardly but irrational. The Republicans aren’t necessarily doing the right thing to prevent more attacks in the future, particularly in their long-term international relations policies. Just because they tell us more attacks are coming, we shouldn’t assume they’re doing all they can or should be doing.

In World War II, London did not submit to fear, though dozens, even hundreds died every day from bombings. To submit from fear will avail you nothing but a misery of soul. Question everything. Even if you swiftly find you agree, question, for only then can you find truth.

In the last few weeks, now that the war in
Afghanistan has simmered down
somewhat and the
romance of incompetent auditing has lost its
edge, stories about Napster and the fate of
digital music have begun to resurface. A
recent article in the Wall Street Journal
(”Record Companies Should Attempt To
Compete for Music Fans’ Loyalty”, 4.15.02)
spoke of the many wonderful ways to currently
pirate music. The article also suggested that the low
quality of current free services gave the RIAA
an opportunity to provide a subscription based
service of higher quality. While this may work,
the logistics of such a system
have yet to be worked out.

While I personally doubt such a scheme would work, I also
think attempting to make a Napster-like
service that charges people for access is
trying to answer the wrong question. Such a
service is well and good for compensating the
record companies who own the copyright on
the music being traded over the
Internet, but it’s a pretty rotten way to
compensate artists who sold the rights in
the first place. As far as I know, nobody has
determined how to reward artists
proportionally for their contributions to a music
sharing service. Simply tallying the number of
downloads seems like a naive solution, easily
manipulated and not ultimately indicative of
each artist’s contribution to a music service’s
success.

The impetus behind such a subscription
service is to obtain
money for the distribution of music, under the
thinking that piracy (in this case, the unlawful
duplication and distribution of music over the
Internet) is stealing. This bumper sticker
equation “Piracy=Stealing” has become a
rallying cry among many, the main points of
which will be (presumably) found in an
upcoming book by O’Reilly. While I understand the
sentiment, I find the specifics of the argument a bit muddled.

Stealing is defined (by www.dictionary.com) as “to
take (the property of another) without right or
permission.” Traditionally, when I think of
stealing, I think of taking something from
someone else. Like, say, taking my neighbor’s
Prius. (Man, I would love to have a Prius).
Now, most people would regard this as an
immoral thing because I’ve deprived my
neighbor of his marvelous environmentally
friendly vehicle without his agreement
and without compensation. He feels wronged,
and may feel inclined to bring criminal
charges against me.

Notice, however, that no one thinks I have
been unfair to Toyota. Indeed, I doubt if a
manufacturer has ever sued a thief for stealing
their product. You might even consider it a form of advertising.
Hey, look, this is cool enough to steal!

Of course, with music piracy, things are quite
different. In the case of Napster, it’s as if
there exists some marvelous machine which
can make a car for almost nothing. In addition,
my neighbor has not only lent me his car, but
felt like it was perfectly fine for me to copy it
with this marvelous machine free of charge.
He has not only consented to this, but even
gone through the trouble of putting it
out specifically for me to find.

Now, the argument against this line of
thinking is that you
are robbing from the copyright holder, because
if you hadn’t gotten it for free, you would have
paid to get a Prius. Therefore, you are stealing
from Toyota.

This argument pre-supposes
that I would have bought a Prius if I hadn’t
stolen one, which is most unlikely, as I cannot
readily afford an environmentally friendly
vehicle or any vehicle at all (unless you count
my Royce Dual Suspension Scooter). Even if I could afford one, I don’t know where in San Francisco I’d
park it. Furthermore, if you really
insist that I am “stealing” from the copyright holder, then
why doesn’t Toyota sue thieves when they steal cars from
Toyota owners, accusing the thieves of circumventing the cost of the car?

Ultimately, however, I will not argue that
piracy is not unfair, or unjust. In the U.S.
constitution, it clearly states in Article 1 Section
8 that “The Congress shall have power…..To
promote the progress of science and useful
arts, by securing for limited times to authors
and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries.” One can
argue about whether the laws that Congress
has enacted are reasonable, but the right to
control how many copies are made and the
means of distribution for a given piece of work
is clearly covered by law. To trade music
through a service like Napster is
illegal and probably “wrong,” as you have not
compensated the copyright holder or the
creator of the music (usually different entities,
in this case) for their respective contributions.
So it is illegal and immoral - it just isn’t “stealing.”