feminist blogs

Cathy Young argues that our current copyright system isn’t working as originally intended:

My argument: copyright law as it currently exists does the opposite of its original intent (as formulated in the U.S. Constitution, which allows Congress to legislate on copyright, and in the very first copyright statute enacted in 1790): to promote arts and letters and encourage learning, by giving authors an incentive to create new works by ensuring that they can fairly profit from their writings. (In olden days, it wasn’t at all uncommon for unauthorized editions of books to be legally sold with no profits going to the writer.) Today, copyright violation claims are commonly invoked to suppress new works — whether it’s 60 Years Later, The Wind Done Gone (the “Gone With the Wind-from-a-slave’s-point-of-view” novel that was finally declared legal after much wrangling in the courts), a production of a James Joyce play, or fan-made Xena: Warrior Princess videos on YouTube.

I agree. But Cathy also writes:

Would it really be perfectly fine, from a libertarian point of view, if, after the huge success of the first Harry Potter book, Joe Smith or Mary Jones quickly popped out a sequel before J.K. Rowling could publish the second one?

Well, I’m not a libertarian. But why not?

I’d suggest that Smith and/or Jones should be legally required to pay Rowling some sort of licensing fee if their book has a print run over a thousand copies in a year; and that the front cover include a clear (”not written or authorized by J.K. Rowling”), so consumers aren’t deceived.

But with that in place, I don’t see what the problem is. Few if any Harry Potter fans would have said “oh, why even bother reading the Rowling versions when they come out, now that quick knock-offs are available,” so it’s not as if allowing the knock-offs would deprive Rowling of her ability to earn a living.

Meanwhile, forbidding Smith and Jones from publishing their Harry Potter knock-off might well deprive them of their ability to make a living as Harry Potter knock-off writers, and it arguably infringes on their freedom of speech.

I can already hear people saying: “Who cares? Smith and Jones don’t have an original thought in their head. They don’t have a right to other people’s speech.” But some artists work best by reimagining works they already love, rather than by creating “from scratch.”¹ Sometimes the result is a better work than the original — think of Stephen Sondheim’s great musical Sweeny Todd, which was adapted from a play. I think the culture be richer for it if artists who feel compelled to work with the books and characters they loved as kids, were free to do so, and to do it full-time if there’s enough of a market for their work.

Often, when I make this argument, people ask me how I’d feel if someone out there produced a sleazy porno Hereville comic. Well, obviously, I’d be appalled. But just because I find someone else’s work appalling, doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

1. Actually, no artist in the world creates from scratch.

I’d highly recommend reading “The Real Struggle In Iran,” George Friedman’s analysis the recent events in Iran. I have no way of knowing if Friedman’s analysis is accurate or not; but it seems a good deal more plausible to me than the narrative I’ve seen from much of the major media.

When Ahmadinejad defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi on the night of the election, the clerical elite saw themselves in serious danger. The margin of victory Ahmadinejad claimed might have given him the political clout to challenge their position. Mousavi immediately claimed fraud, and Rafsanjani backed him up. Whatever the motives of those in the streets, the real action was a knife fight between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani. By the end of the week, Khamenei decided to end the situation. In essence, he tried to hold things together by ordering the demonstrations to halt while throwing a bone to Rafsanjani and Mousavi by extending a probe into the election irregularities and postponing a partial recount by five days.

The key to understanding the situation in Iran is realizing that the past weeks have seen not an uprising against the regime, but a struggle within the regime. Ahmadinejad is not part of the establishment, but rather has been struggling against it, accusing it of having betrayed the principles of the Islamic Revolution. The post-election unrest in Iran therefore was not a matter of a repressive regime suppressing liberals (as in Prague in 1989), but a struggle between two Islamist factions that are each committed to the regime, but opposed to each other.

The demonstrators certainly included Western-style liberalizing elements, but they also included adherents of senior clerics who wanted to block Ahmadinejad’s re-election. And while Ahmadinejad undoubtedly committed electoral fraud to bulk up his numbers, his ability to commit unlimited fraud was blocked, because very powerful people looking for a chance to bring him down were arrayed against him.

The situation is even more complex because it is not simply a fight between Ahmadinejad and the clerics, but also a fight among the clerical elite regarding perks and privileges — and Ahmadinejad is himself being used within this infighting.

Friedman argues that in terms of foreign policy, there is likely to be no difference to the US, no matter which faction comes out on top.

We do not believe that Iran is close to obtaining a nuclear weapon, a point we have made frequently. Iran understands that the actual acquisition of a nuclear weapon would lead to immediate U.S. or Israeli attacks. Accordingly, Iran’s ideal position is to be seen as developing nuclear weapons, but not close to having them. This gives Tehran a platform for bargaining without triggering Iran’s destruction, a task at which it has proved sure-footed.

In addition, Iran has maintained capabilities in Iraq and Lebanon. Should the United States or Israel attack, Iran would thus be able to counter by doing everything possible to destabilize Iraq — bogging down U.S. forces there — while simultaneously using Hezbollah’s global reach to carry out terror attacks. After all, Hezbollah is today’s al Qaeda on steroids. The radical Shiite group’s ability, coupled with that of Iranian intelligence, is substantial.

We see no likelihood that any Iranian government would abandon this two-pronged strategy without substantial guarantees and concessions from the West. Those would have to include guarantees of noninterference in Iranian affairs. Obama, of course, has been aware of this bedrock condition, which is why he went out of his way before the election to assure Khamenei in a letter that the United States had no intention of interfering.

I’d recommend reading the whole thing, as well as this earlier piece by Friedman.

At the start of the month, Megan McArdle — who is, I think, pro-choice — wrote:

But in this case, I think the analogy to slavery is important, for two reasons. First of all, it was the last time we had an extended, society-wide debate about personhood. [...]

Listening to the debates about abortion, it seems to me that really broad swathes of the pro-choice movement seem to genuinely not understand that this is a debate about personhood, which is why you get moronic statements like “If you think abortions are wrong, don’t have one!” If you think a fetus is a person, it is not useful to be told that you, personally, are not required to commit murder, as long as you leave the neighbors alone while they do it.

Conversely, if Africans are not people, then slavery is not wrong.

Although Megan is (I think) pro-choice, I’ve certainly heard this argument made by pro-lifers any number of times. But “lack of personhood” was not, in fact, a major pro-slavery argument. I’d recommend listening to (or reading the transcript of) this lecture by Yale historian David Blight, in which he outlines the pre-civil-war pro-slavery arguments.

The entire lecture is worth your time, but here — heavily edited for space — is Blight’s outline of the important pro-slavery arguments.

Now, there are many ways to look at pro-slavery. Deep, deep in the pro-slavery argument–I’m going to give you categories here to hang your hats on–deep in the pro-slavery argument is a biblical argument. Almost all pro-slavery writers at one point or another will dip into the Old Testament, or dip into the New Testament–they especially would dip to the Old–to show how slavery is an ancient and venerable institution. [...] You can therefore assume it was divinely sanctioned. [...]

A second kind of set of arguments, I’ve already referred to, are the historical ones. Here it is not just the venerability of slavery, how old it is, but it’s the idea that it has been crucial to the development of all great civilizations. That slavery may have its bad aspects but it has been the engine of good, it has been the engine of empires, the engine of wealth, the engine of greatness. How would you have had Cicero? How would you have had the great Roman philosophers and thinkers? [...]

Pro-slavery ideology is also part of–at the same time it’s resistant to–the greatest product arguably of the Enlightenment, and that is the idea of natural rights; natural law, natural rights, rights by birth, rights from God, being born with certain capacities. Now pro-slavery writers were inspired by this to some extent, but many of them will simply convert it. They will convert it–they’ll take portions of John Locke that they like, and not the others–and they’ll say the real rule of the world is not natural equality, but it is natural inequality. Humans are not all born the same, with the same capacities, abilities.

Now, then there’s a whole array of economic arguments, and the cynic, the economic determinist, simply goes to the economic conclusions of pro-slavery and nowhere else. [...] “You will say that man cannot hold property in man. The answer is that he can, and actually does, hold property in his fellow, all over the world, in a variety of forms, and has always done so.” [...]

Some would get worried and they would discuss slavery as a necessary evil–this system entailed upon them. [...] “But the question is, in my present circumstances, with evil on my hands, entailed from my father, would the general interest of the slaves and community at large, with reference to the slaves, be promoted best by emancipation? Could I do more for the ultimate good of the slave population by holding or emancipating what I own?” [...] he develops a highly intricate theory of how he’s going to use slavery to save black people. He’s going to ameliorate their conditions, he’s going to make their slavery on his plantations so effective, so good, such a even joyous form of labor, that he will be doing God’s work by improving slavery.[...]

There are many pro-slavery writers who developed, like James Henry Hammond, what I would call the cynical or amoral form of pro-slavery argument; and this is a potent form of argument when you think about it. [...] “The only problem with slavery in America,” said James Henry Hammond, is that too damn many northerners didn’t understand it is the way of the world as it is, and they ought to stop talking about the world as it ought to be.” [...] “Is it not palpably nearer the truth to say that no man was ever born free and that no two men were ever born equal? Man is born in a state of the most helpless dependence on other people.”

And then there’s the whole vast category of racial defense and justification of slavery. [...] Probably the most prominent pro-slavery writer to make the racial case–and they all did–but probably the most prominent was George Fitzhugh. [...] “The Negro,” he said, “is but a grownup child and must be governed as a child. The master occupies toward him the place of parent or guardian. Like a wild horse he must be caught, tamed and domesticated.” [...]

And lastly, there was a kind of utopian pro-slavery. [...] In Hughes’s vision and Hughes’s worldview slavery was not only a positive good–it was the possibility of man finding a perfected society, with the perfect landowners fulfilling their obligations, supported by a government that taxed the hell out of them to do it, and perfect workers, would make the South into the agricultural utopian civilization of history.

It’s politically useful for pro-lifers to pretend that abortion and slavery were similar debates, and that the major argument for slavery was the claim that Africans were not people. But that’s simply not true.

(Note that in the lecture I’m quoting, Blight’s intent wasn’t making a case about abortion in either direction — Blight isn’t shading his arguments towards a pro-choice or pro-life outcome, he’s simply explaining the history of pro-slavery arguments. Can pro-lifers cite similarly non-biased sources to support their argument?)

See also: Ta-Nehisi.

* * *

P.S. I can’t resist pointing out that the first few arguments Blight lists — the institution goes back forever, it’s in the Bible, and it’s the foundation of civilization — are also the major arguments used in the present day to argue for banning same-sex couples from marriage.

Longtime “Alas” readers will recall a long-ago co-blogger, my friend and housemate Bean, who still posts a very occasional comment here, plus I often use Bean’s photos for kid blogging.

Sydney and Maddox were recently flower girls at the wedding of Bean to a lovely, quirky guy named Dan.

Many more pictures — not only of the girls, but also of a few other folks of interest to the “Alas” community — below the fold.

I love Maddox’s expression in this pic. “Why is Sydney holding hands with that boy?”

I’ve always found Sydney extremely easy to take nice pictures of; Sydney has a tendency to arrange herself well and to have camera-friendly expressions. Maddox looks almost exactly like Sydney did two years ago, but is mysteriously harder to take good photos of; her eyes are always closed, or she’s making a face that doesn’t look like herself, or she’s just moving too fast to get anything but a blur. (Bean says that you can capture Sydney with a photo, but it takes a video to get Maddox.)

I’ve taken nice photos of Maddox over the years, but it’s more effort. With Sydney you just point the camera in her direction and nice photos appear. The photos Bean got from the pro wedding photographer seem to prove that it’s not just me; there are tons of nice photos of Sydney, but not that many of Maddox.

Another pretty picture of Sydney.

Sydney explains to Bean that she (Sydney) is a spy. When Bean later repeated this to me, Sydney got quite annoyed, since she had been a secret spy.

The entrance of the flower girls. As far as Sydney and Maddox are concerned, this moment is what the whole wedding was about.¹

Of course, the girls weren’t the only “Alas” related folks present at Bean’s wedding….

The newly married couple of Bean and Dan. Huzzah! And in the background, the officient is me, Ampersand. I’m happy to report that I didn’t have to moderate Bean or Dan even once during the wedding ceremony. But I wish I had straightened my tie.

“Alas” co-moderator and frequent comment-writer Charles, wearing what I always think of as his puffy poet shirt, contemplates a flower girl bouquet.

Frequent “Alas” comment-writer Jake Squid, puffing on that newfangled e-cigarette of his.

Kevin Moore, whose political cartoons I’ve occasionally linked to, and who has occasionally left comments here. Looking at this photo, you may think Kevin is drunk. And for all I know, he was drunk. But the sad truth is, he always looks like that.

When I checked with Kev that it was okay for me to post his photo, he replied:

Here are my restrictions: It’s okay to publish my photo, unless I am naked. But if by some random chance/miracle a pic of me naked looks good and/or hot, then publish it. However, no photoshopping in bestiality. Unless the animal in question is really hot, then go ahead.

Another shot of me, because face it, I look sweet in a suit.

And one last shot of Bean and Dan. Sydney and Maddox, whenever they see photos of Dan and Bean kissing, will scream and cover their eyes, and Sydney will cry out “it burns, it burns!” (We’re not sure where she picked that up from, but it’s awesome.) In fact, Maddox in particular so enjoys this process, she specifically seeks out photos of Bean and Dan kissing, so she can object to having seen them.

Maziltov, Bean and Dan!

1. ”There are no small roles, only small actors.”

As usual, use this thread to post or link whatever you’d like. Self-linking is entirely welcome.

1. Raising a child to be neither girl nor boy, just “Pop.” Unapologetically Female and Feministing both comment.
2. It’s like a sick Onion headline come to life: Texas police raid gay bar on 40th anniversary of Stonewall. One bar patron is seriously injured.(Via.)
3. Ten things wrong with the President of France’s wanting to eliminate the burqa.
4. And at Global Comment: “Banning women from wearing the burqa is not about freedom, it is about the normalization of the Western performance of femininity.” (Via.)
5. Like a dictionary, but better, and crowdsourced: Wordnic. (Via.)
6. Ezra on Obama, taxes, and giving in to the Republican framing.
7. My God, who wouldn’t want a wife? (I wish she had posted this on “Alas.”)
8. If we wipe out the financial managers, that would solve many problems.
9. How Spike ruined Buffy, and Buffy ruined vampires. (Via.)
10. Israel has made some improvements in response to Obama.
11. How Obama’s big speech in Egypt gets a “C” at best on women’s rights. Although unlike Cathy, I’m not against mentioning that America has problems too; I don’t believe that Obama makes an equivalence just because he mentions them both in the same speech. (It’s a matter of contextual analysis, however, not a hard-and-fast rule.) In the end, the real question is: How could Obama have put it that would have been more likely to make a positive difference? I’m not sure what the answer is.
12. Womanist Musings on prison rape.
13. Unexpected allies department: The Corner gets it right on prison rape.
14. Posted because it’s of interest, not because I agree with all of it: Does it make sense to “ally” with Iranians when I have no idea what I’m talking about? (Via.)
15. Evolutionary psychology is still nonsense.
16. On being a Christian who wants to treat lesbian and gay people justly.
17. No, the financial crash was not caused by the Community Reinvestment Act. It really wasn’t.
18. Little Wheel. You’re a robot trying to wake up a dozing robot city. “Nothin’ too complicated, not really what I’d call a “game”, more like an animated story with a bit of interactivity, but nevertheless, beautiful and enjoyable.”

Click on the cartoon to see a larger version.

From the NYT:

In a ruling of interest to educators, parents and students across the country, the Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, on Thursday that the strip search of a 13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who were looking for prescription-strength drugs violated her constitutional rights.

The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they went too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.

Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

“In sum, what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear,” the court said. “We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”

The dissent was written by Thomas.

The court also ruled that the vice-principal could not personally be held liable for his actions in this case. Dissenting from that decision were Ginsburg and Stevens. However, lower courts can still decide to hold the school district liable.

(Curtsy to Sailorman in comments.)

For some reason, we’ve seen a huge increase in spam recently — I’m not sure how many spams I’ve deleted in the last couple of days, but it’s probably over a thousand.

The more spam we get, the more likely it is that genuine comments that are accidentally caught by our spam-trap will get deleted along with the spam. To make this less likely, please let us know right away if you think a comment of yours may be stuck in the spam trap.

I know that our current anti-spam software — Akismet — has been crappy for a while. At this point, it’s basically impossible to post a link in comments without being mistaken for spam. I’m hoping to have time to deal with the problem, and institute a better spam solution, in mid-July.

The AP has a story about the New York City school system’s “rubber rooms” — the places where hundreds of teachers facing disciplinary hearings wait, doing no work but drawing full salaries. Sometimes this can go on for years.

Because the teachers collect their full salaries of $70,000 or more, the city Department of Education estimates the practice costs the taxpayers $65 million a year. The department blames union rules.

“It is extremely difficult to fire a tenured teacher because of the protections afforded to them in their contract,” spokeswoman Ann Forte said. [...]

Many teachers say they are being punished because they ran afoul of a vindictive boss or because they blew the whistle when somebody fudged test scores.

So the teachers blame the schools, the schools blame the teachers. Buried deep in the article, however, the real culprit is briefly mentioned:

Once their hearings are over, they are either sent back to the classroom or fired. But because their cases are heard by 23 arbitrators who work only five days a month, stints of two or three years in a rubber room are common, and some teachers have been there for five or six.

So why don’t they just hire a bunch of full-time arbitrators? Given the millions of dollars of potential savings, it seems silly not to hire the needed personnel.

There’s an compelling episode of “This American Life” focusing on life inside teacher purgatory.

(Via.)