(This post came out of a Facebook discussion on the merits and potential liabilities of this term.)
I’ve read a first-rate article by Edward Feser explaining why the Left reacts so viscerally when people “on the wrong side of history” feel like they have to make clear their lack of endorsement of same-sex weddings. (I mean, in the 21st Century, you’re telling me, you won’t bake a wedding cake for me?! Seriously?)
In this article, Feser suggests that not baking that cake or photographing that blissful day is ultimately a deeply subversive act that threatens the very fabric of the society (modern-day) liberals have built for themselves: a egalitarian, anything-goes sexually “free” society. It suggests that what we are doing is wrong, and it brings the suppressed shame (that we don’t want to deal with or admit we even have) to the surface. So let’s look at not baking that wedding cake actually entail (because I don’t have time to discuss the issue of general discrimination, and plus, most of those (even Christian!) bakeries are generally happy to serve all customers regardless of orientation … that’s not the issue: the wedding cake issue is). Two points and a conclusion (and FULL DISCLAIMER: some reflections suitable for the day after Good Friday and before Resurrection Sunday). Continue reading
See this excellent summary of Derek Khanna’s position (promoted by Khanna himself) here.
(*The above title was a comment coined by Rekrul.)
The above title/comment was from this article, which continues the RSC Copyright “saga” (see my previous blog post to catch up to speed), aka “Hollywood Lobbying, Bribery, and Corrupt Bipartisanship.” To refresh, young Republican staffer Derek Khanna pens an excellent policy brief that was so good Hollywood felt threatened and had it pulled by Republicans. It was so good for the public that Hollywood would have lost some of its monopolistic privileges it has come to enjoy at the expense of taxpayers and the general common good. Continue reading
Food for thought: did Beethoven or Mozart need to protect their musical tricks and methods? Do they (or anyone) have a right to limit/prevent others from using certain musical twists or melodies? Do chefs these days need to patent recipes? Do they have the right to? [Hint: the answer to all four is a resounding “ABSOLUTELY NOT!”] And imagine if courts ruled in favor of patenting recipes. Then you wouldn’t be able to serve food in particular ways. And you think this is crazy? This is exactly what happens to software and ideas. You can’t do things anymore without asking for permission. It’s almost like asking for permission to breathe whenever someone perfumes the air. Because they spent time and effort to add value to air, you now must pay for it or ask for permission!
Here is an excellent article on how copyright is totally abused by various private-interest groups: House Republicans: Copyright Law Destroys Markets; It’s Time For Real Reform. From the article, which actually quotes the House Republican Study Report [UPDATE: this is now a DEAD LINK! It was taken down within 24 hours via Hollywood pressure – see this article – Republicans caved in to pressure and apologized for not “adequately” vetting the review… absolute baloney – the report can instead be found here and here – and actually, the fact that it only took 24 hours to bring the Republican Party to its knees for writing something sensible, wise, and concise starkly illustrates the point in my point above, except, read “government” instead of “copyright.”] on three myths that need to be debunked: Continue reading