2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The Department of Homeland Security is seizing hip-hop blogs and file-sharing websites.

On November 29 ICE seized 82 websites, many sold counterfeit goods but others were file sharing websites. ICE called it the "Cyber Monday Crackdown"

Should intellectual property rights be changed, were all of the websites really criminal,? I think big media no longer has an economic purpose and shouldn't be defended by law.

There have been many critical reactions to ICE‘s actions, some see free speech violation, some see no evidence and invalid warrants, some see unwelcome regulation of the "free internet". Many accept the need to crack down on counterfeit goods but what about the blogs which were supposedly promoting artists; what about the torrent search websites?

Please do a show discussing: what happened during the cyber monday crackdown, how strong is the evidence, what does the new law (COICA) say. Then please consider the complicated blend of ideology surrounding internet piracy.

The second part is very important to me, I'll outline ideological viewpoints because the discussions in the media so far don't recognize that there are many very different points of view.

They either confuse the actions and statements of those holding one belief with those holding others, or they only represent two. I'm asking for a discussion that attempts to define and separate the beliefs and show groups that hold them as they pertain to piracy and internet freedom. The beliefs about the internet are outlined at the very bottom because they are only guide posts to decipher the beliefs behind actions and statements.

Fellow listeners can help the ideological discussion by, responding to my perspective (next post), pointing out bloggers and opinion makers that correspond to each stance I outline at the bottom, fleshing out their own mix of beliefs, or including ones I've missed.

The internet is: a new stronghold of free speech++ a place for anonymity and anarchy (think "anonymous" the wiki-leak hackers)++ a new market place and artistic medium++ an extension of commerce directly to the consumers home++ a common gathering place for socialization++ a great repository of knowledge enabling independence (think Wikipedia and Howcast)++ a corruption of commerce++ a corruption of socialization++ a threat to intellectual property++ enabling people to become radicalized and say things they wouldn't normally++ a dangerous source of misinformation and so large it enables echo chambers

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

See my post about the department of homeland security's seizure of 82 websites.

I'm interested your topic too but mostly because other countries such as South Korea have much much faster internet and Estonia is a wifi hotspot.

This is because of a principle in technological anthropology called the limitations of prior accomplishment it simply states that if a country is an early innovator in a technology it might object to tearing out and replacing the first generation infrastructure with upgrades. This often means that the first country becomes a weaker competitor compared to other, originally less innovative countries that have nothing to replace and are free to use the newest versions.

I believe this is the source of the seemingly corrupt or greedy actions, we are paying extra for various psychological attachments to the old infrastructure. Your lobby would confront illusions. Businesses look at how much they've paid to maintain the old technology and believe it still needs to be paid off. They think it will be difficult to train people to handle the new systems. They think the cost of the new system will stack on the old. This is just my speculation based on a book.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

An Expansion on Sacrifice as the Objective Measure of Tax Fairness.

     After listening to the whole show, I am more convinced than ever that tax fairness is objectively the comparison of sacrifice. The situtation with s-corps is what convinces me. Here you have a lot of income that one might consider great wealth; but that income doesn't just support a family that same income also supports a bussiness. So a tax that might not cause a high salaried employee to sacrifice, does cause sacrfice for the medium earning business owner.

     Using sacrifice as the definition of tax fairness doesn't give us one clear view of how to tax. However, it does give us a way to measure tax fairness that aligns its self with the arguments both for and against laws like this. Which means that agreeing to use sacrifice as the metric can give both sides enough common ground to lay out healthy, long term tax reform.

     I support a flat tax rate on all personal income because then taxes become less of a factor, we would all adjust to the simplicity of it and begin to take taxes for granted. Everyone is taxed the same percentage so there is no one who "has it better". The high emotions of tax concerns would fade away.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

The fairness of taxes is defined by sacrifice.

If you earn one million dollars a year and are taxed 18% that is $180,000. Anytime anyone sees $180,000 go anywhere they cringe, and think that it is unfair. Maybe if we hadn't had a century of inflation and cars could still be bought for $200 than smaller numbers mean less revulsion.

A parent who earns $25,000 is taxed at a higher percentage but pays a smaller number has to choose between necessities even without a tax. A parent who earns $100,000 could be taxed 50% and would only have to choose a more modest house a more modest car and maybe create a food budget. Though a rich man pays a higher number they pay nothing in sacrifice.

I advocate a flat tax!

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I am 21 and a poor college student. I sprung for the purchase ($249)  because I want all my texts in one place. I built a camera rig that takes a picture of each page of a book then I convert these files to a single PDF and put it on the reader. (then return the book to my friend or the library) I don't use a Kindle I use the sony reader because I abhor DRM.  My experience is mixed the screen is way to small and with this method of book capturing you cant use the text enlarging feature it really needs to be 8 inches. Still the fact that I have practically all the worlds knowledge in my pocket is in valuable. Also I haven't paid for a single one. 

I think that if newspaperes like the Oregonian delivered a PDF format in a email to suscribers  then they would see the use of readers explode and subscriptions would go back to normal.

posted 4 years ago
view in context