Economic factoids
04/10/2012 13:07
Morgan Housel from the Motley Fool investment website recently made a list of fifty factoids about the economy that he says blow his mind. It showed up in my inbox in a spam message from the Motley Fools. I usually don’t read investment opinions, because it doesn’t seem to me like anyone at Zacks or Seeking Alpha or the Fool is right more than half the time on average. For the most part he does not cite sources, so there’s no guarantee these are accurate. But some of Housel’s factoids were interesting (he numbered them like a countdown):
49. According to economist Tyler Cowen, "Thirty years ago, college graduates made 40 percent more than high school graduates, but now the gap is about 83 percent."
43. About the same number of people was awarded bachelor's degrees in 2010 as filed for personal bankruptcy (1.6 million).
47. A record $6 billion will be spent on the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Adjusted for inflation, that's 60% more than the 2000 elections.
That’s just criminal.
42. According to The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. refineries are producing more gasoline and diesel than ever. And Americans' gasoline consumption is at an 11-year-low."
12. For the first time since 1949, the U.S. is now a net exporter of fuel products like gasoline and diesel.
So if not because of supply and demand, why are gas prices so high?
38. The Census Bureau now classifies nearly 1 in 6 Americans as living in poverty.
3. The combined assets of Wal-Mart's Walton family is equal to that of the bottom 150 million Americans.
Again, criminal.
28. Just five companies, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Google, and Pfizer, now hold nearly one-quarter of all corporate cash, equal to more than a quarter-trillion dollars.
21. Netflix is now responsible for about one-third of all Internet bandwidth.
So there’s a 1% and a 99% in the world of business, too.
49. According to economist Tyler Cowen, "Thirty years ago, college graduates made 40 percent more than high school graduates, but now the gap is about 83 percent."
43. About the same number of people was awarded bachelor's degrees in 2010 as filed for personal bankruptcy (1.6 million).
47. A record $6 billion will be spent on the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Adjusted for inflation, that's 60% more than the 2000 elections.
That’s just criminal.
42. According to The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. refineries are producing more gasoline and diesel than ever. And Americans' gasoline consumption is at an 11-year-low."
12. For the first time since 1949, the U.S. is now a net exporter of fuel products like gasoline and diesel.
So if not because of supply and demand, why are gas prices so high?
38. The Census Bureau now classifies nearly 1 in 6 Americans as living in poverty.
3. The combined assets of Wal-Mart's Walton family is equal to that of the bottom 150 million Americans.
Again, criminal.
28. Just five companies, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Google, and Pfizer, now hold nearly one-quarter of all corporate cash, equal to more than a quarter-trillion dollars.
21. Netflix is now responsible for about one-third of all Internet bandwidth.
So there’s a 1% and a 99% in the world of business, too.
Some thoughts about Food
04/06/2012 09:49
First, there’s a detailed and very interesting article about Pink Slime, in the Emporia Gazette (east-central Kansas, pop. ~25,000) this week. The USDA microbiologist who coined the term is apparently from there. He makes a lot of good, sensible points. For example:
“It’s ridiculous,” he said. “They’re going, ‘ah it’s safe. It’s 100 percent beef.’ Okay great, it’s 100 percent beef. It’s just not as wholesome and nutritious as fresh ground beef. And then they don’t label it and people are paying nearly full price for whatever percentage of additive they are getting. They sell it for almost the same price as good, fresh ground beef.”
And then he goes on to explain why – things like levels of insoluble protein, bacteria load, and how much of it is in “regular” food, anyway? One thing to note: this guy is the real USDA. Not one of the political appointees at the top of the heap, doing the bidding of agribusiness – but a real scientist who probably got into it because he cares a bit about both science and food.
This article contains useful information, for people who want to understand the issue and make their own decisions. In contrast, I was really disappointed with the Boing Boing science editor’s approach to the issue last week, which was basically that “Given the massive amounts of energy it takes to raise a cow, I'd rather have us use all the cow, rather than waste the gross parts. And, when it comes down to it, I'm not convinced that pink slime is any more gross than, say, what goes on in 3/4 of French Provencal cooking.”
Cute, but not so useful. You can get a couple of cabezas (sheep heads with fur still on) in the market at Concepción, Chile for 1500 pesos (three bucks). But you’d better have an old-fashioned, traditional Chilean recipe to give you a clue what to do with them! And in any case, I don’t think the point is that connective tissue and other non-steak parts of the cow are off limits. The point is, if we’re paying for hamburger and it’s always been made in a particular way, out of a particular type of raw material, then not telling us you’ve changed the formula is a bit of a problem. Especially if the new product has a higher risk of being contaminated and the government is putting it in school lunches.
Second, here’s a reminder from the Daily Yonder of where the money we spend on food goes, from the USDA’s Economic Research Service. ERS is an interesting place to visit for data – although most of the farm data is limited to agribusiness-style agriculture. It’s better on “rural” topics like demographics, food deserts, etc.
Third, here’s a story from the Organic Consumers Association (which originally appeared on AlterNet) about Monsanto threatening to sue Vermont if the state requires GMO labeling. It’s absurd that a corporation thinks it can bully a state – and Ethan Allen’s state at that! Bottom line, it amounts to an admission by Monsanto: “Yes, we know our products are really bad for you and that if given a choice, you would avoid them. Our only hope is to prevent you from knowing which products contain our shit.” Hopefully, Vermonters will do the sensible thing and simply boycott any product that does not carry a label, and begin buying large quantities of products whose label says NO GMOs. That will send a bigger message, in the long run, than legislation.
Finally, as if to prove that corporate arrogance isn’t limited to Monsanto, some idiots at a Chicken Shack fast food company attacked a regular guy over his “Eat More Kale” t-shirts. Kale is really good for you (as fast food chicken sandwiches aren’t). We grow kale, and eat a lot of it in smoothies, kale chips, and salads. And I’ve never eaten a Chick-Fil-A sandwich, and never plan to. So of course, I bought a t-shirt.
“It’s ridiculous,” he said. “They’re going, ‘ah it’s safe. It’s 100 percent beef.’ Okay great, it’s 100 percent beef. It’s just not as wholesome and nutritious as fresh ground beef. And then they don’t label it and people are paying nearly full price for whatever percentage of additive they are getting. They sell it for almost the same price as good, fresh ground beef.”
And then he goes on to explain why – things like levels of insoluble protein, bacteria load, and how much of it is in “regular” food, anyway? One thing to note: this guy is the real USDA. Not one of the political appointees at the top of the heap, doing the bidding of agribusiness – but a real scientist who probably got into it because he cares a bit about both science and food.
This article contains useful information, for people who want to understand the issue and make their own decisions. In contrast, I was really disappointed with the Boing Boing science editor’s approach to the issue last week, which was basically that “Given the massive amounts of energy it takes to raise a cow, I'd rather have us use all the cow, rather than waste the gross parts. And, when it comes down to it, I'm not convinced that pink slime is any more gross than, say, what goes on in 3/4 of French Provencal cooking.”
Third, here’s a story from the Organic Consumers Association (which originally appeared on AlterNet) about Monsanto threatening to sue Vermont if the state requires GMO labeling. It’s absurd that a corporation thinks it can bully a state – and Ethan Allen’s state at that! Bottom line, it amounts to an admission by Monsanto: “Yes, we know our products are really bad for you and that if given a choice, you would avoid them. Our only hope is to prevent you from knowing which products contain our shit.” Hopefully, Vermonters will do the sensible thing and simply boycott any product that does not carry a label, and begin buying large quantities of products whose label says NO GMOs. That will send a bigger message, in the long run, than legislation.
Wind in Minnesota
04/02/2012 20:36
Looks like there’s wind in Minnesota too! Click on the map, to see the current wind conditions in the continental US, in motion! By Fernanda Viégas and Martin Wattenberg, who have done loads of interesting data visualization - and thanks to Boing Boing for pointing it out. It’s cool and pretty. And it gets you thinking about where we might want to put windmills…
Solar in Minnesota
03/31/2012 09:48
One of the fun things about the book is that she writes from a midwestern perspective. How often do you see a book dealing with national or global issues, locating itself in the “flyover” zone?
But in the end, I think the rubber will really hit the road when regular people can make changes that work for them, rather than the whole of society or the energy companies. That’s why it’s cool to see people in places like northern Minnesota doing their own thing with solar energy. Or maybe it’s just that I’m an incurable rural localist...
Real Time
03/17/2012 09:41
So what I’m trying to do is get a little bit of info, when I find these topics, so I can get back to them later. In a sense, maybe this is how authors worked in the days when they were doing the final edits on one manuscript while writing the next, proposing the one after that, and looking for the projects after those. This is the way mu adviser once described her process. In the world of self-publishing, the steps are a little different, but maybe the principal is the same.
The one thing that has really struck me, as I’ve been getting down to writing one project that I’ve been thinking about for a couple years, is how wasteful it is to go over the same ground again and again simply because I didn’t complete the job earlier. I have file folders, backup hard drives, and memory sticks filled with documents. I’ve downloaded hundreds of pdfs from Google or the Internet Archive. I have a stack of index cards nearly four inches high, two partial bibliographies in Endnote and one in Sente. And I have a half dozen outlines and drafts.
It’s good that I’ve been thinking about this project as long as I have been, and it will probably be a better end product because of it. But next time, I’m going to try to be a little more careful about identifying the material I’m collecting, and writing about it as I’m collecting it. In real-time.
Maybe I thought I wasn’t ready to actually start writing this, or maybe I was just lazy – or too excited about the research. You know how it is: one link leads to another, and soon you’ve got gigabytes of great material. But now that it’s writing time, I need to go back over all this material, rediscovering the paths I followed that led me to these records and relearning how they all fit together. Makes me think if I could have been a little more detail-oriented on the front end.
So I’m trying to build a single bibliography for this new, potential project I’ve just discovered. I’m connecting the documents to the entries in Endnote, so I’ll know where they are (and I won’t have to wonder where the most recent ones are!) I’m writing little abstracts and synopses now, so when the time comes I’ll understand how it all fits together and where each record fits in the story. I’ve even got a timeline and a cast of characters, that I can add to anytime between now and whenever I really start this project.
Wish I would’ve started this sooner! The original project I came to grad school thinking about is still out there on a back burner. That folder on the backup drive measures about 29 gigabytes, and some of the files date back to 2006. It will be fun revisiting all that stuff someday. But very expensive.
Self-publishing Histories
03/07/2012 08:37
I’ve been pondering the idea of self-publishing history, and I think the time has nearly come. (This post went to the Historical Society blog today)
Say self-published to anyone over about 30, and the first thought they’ll probably have is “vanity press.” It has always been possible to have a manuscript printed and bound, and there are plenty of examples of useful histories that have been produced this way. Nearly all the “Centennial” histories on display or for sale at small-town historical societies were written by local people, mostly without formal literary or historical training, and published in small lots by local printers or specialist publishers. There were once many more local printers willing to take on “octavo” printing and bookbinding. Dr. Charles Knowlton, for example, self-published his 500-page tome Elements of Modern Materialism using a small printer in Adams, Massachusetts, in 1828 (he bound the volumes in leather and stamped the spines with gilt ink himself), and his infamous birth control book, The Fruits of Philosophy was also produced at Knowlton’s own expense and sold by Knowlton out of his saddle-bags to his patients, until Abner Kneeland began advertising an expanded second edition in The Boston Investigator in 1833.
There are a number of companies specializing in reprinting out-of-copyright books, and many old town histories are for sale at historical societies in these reprint formats. But there are many more stories at these repositories than made it into those old histories, and there are often local historians who work for years at these societies, digging up material on particular families, or on political and social movements that interest them. The market for their stories may be very specific (as in the case of town or regional history), diffuse (as in the case of genealogy), or may be too small to be economically feasible for a standard publisher. This is where self-publishing can change the game.
I’ve been watching the self-publishing industry for several years, and it has changed dramatically. When I wrote my first novel, companies like iUniverse were just beginning to offer self-publishing packages online. These companies used the newly-developed print on demand technology that companies like Amazon and Ingram were adopting to produce mainstream titles just-in-time, to print their clients’ work. They offered editorial services, marketing packages, and bare-bones “publishing,” if you wanted to do those other things yourself. For a little over a thousand dollars, you could get your book into print.
The objection to vanity publishing has always been that it’s trash. If you couldn’t get a publisher interested in your book, the wisdom held, it did not deserve to see the light of day. There’s some truth to this argument, but I think it was much more valid when the book trade was big, profitable for small publishers, and the business was widely distributed among thousands of firms. Nowadays, a small number of media giants control nearly all of the titles that “move,” as well as most of the backlists that fill the rest of the shelves in bookstores. These companies, studies and anecdotal accounts suggest, are becoming ever more conservative. The costs of launching a commercial title are so high for them that they would much prefer to get a new book from an established author than to take a risk.
Wait a minute. The major publishers, just like iUniverse, Amazon, and Ingram, can print on demand. So, where are the costs? Hint: they’re not in the royalties. The real expenses are pre-production costs and distribution, and overwhelmingly, marketing. This is partly because the publishers’ economic model is still based on bookstores, and the need to put thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of physical copies on shelves around the world. But what about those regional, special-interest, niche-market titles?
There are a number of new small publishers catering to niches. Combustion Books for anarchist steam-punk titles and Chelsea Green for sustainable living and farming titles like Harvey Ussery’s brilliant The Small-Scale Poultry Flock, for example. But I chose in 2007 to buy the bare-bones package and self-publish. I lined up my own editing (author Terry Davis, whose workshop I was attending, for story; my Dad, a master teacher of language and literature, for line-editing), sent in my file and my check, and they printed my book. That was just the beginning. I quickly learned that having a title, even on Amazon, does not make the registers ring. Marketing, getting the word out, getting people to look for it, took some real effort. Luckily, the internet offers people in niches an incredible opportunity to find kindred spirits, wherever they may be. I found teen-review websites where I could have my young adult novel read and reviewed by actual teens (they liked it), and I found a contest I could enter my book in (which it won). It’s still selling well, five years later.
But back to history. I had a delightful conversation this week with a woman in Maine who has written a memoir that should be published. It has humor, conflict, suspense, local flavor, and incredible human interest. But how to get it into print? Well, the good news is that, since I tried it in 2007, the self-publishing industry has gone through another generation of change. You can now publish on Amazon, Lulu, and a variety of other platforms, with much more format-flexibility than was available a few years ago and completely free of charge. And they pay much better than they used to back in the early days. Much better on a per-unit basis, in fact, than traditional publishers. If you know what you want to say, if you’re comfortable with the technical end of putting a book together (I like to remind myself that Knowlton and many of the people who published books in the past didn’t have a professional editor, either), and especially if you know who will want the book and how to reach them, self-publishing might be something to consider.
There are a number of companies specializing in reprinting out-of-copyright books, and many old town histories are for sale at historical societies in these reprint formats. But there are many more stories at these repositories than made it into those old histories, and there are often local historians who work for years at these societies, digging up material on particular families, or on political and social movements that interest them. The market for their stories may be very specific (as in the case of town or regional history), diffuse (as in the case of genealogy), or may be too small to be economically feasible for a standard publisher. This is where self-publishing can change the game.
I’ve been watching the self-publishing industry for several years, and it has changed dramatically. When I wrote my first novel, companies like iUniverse were just beginning to offer self-publishing packages online. These companies used the newly-developed print on demand technology that companies like Amazon and Ingram were adopting to produce mainstream titles just-in-time, to print their clients’ work. They offered editorial services, marketing packages, and bare-bones “publishing,” if you wanted to do those other things yourself. For a little over a thousand dollars, you could get your book into print.
The objection to vanity publishing has always been that it’s trash. If you couldn’t get a publisher interested in your book, the wisdom held, it did not deserve to see the light of day. There’s some truth to this argument, but I think it was much more valid when the book trade was big, profitable for small publishers, and the business was widely distributed among thousands of firms. Nowadays, a small number of media giants control nearly all of the titles that “move,” as well as most of the backlists that fill the rest of the shelves in bookstores. These companies, studies and anecdotal accounts suggest, are becoming ever more conservative. The costs of launching a commercial title are so high for them that they would much prefer to get a new book from an established author than to take a risk.
Wait a minute. The major publishers, just like iUniverse, Amazon, and Ingram, can print on demand. So, where are the costs? Hint: they’re not in the royalties. The real expenses are pre-production costs and distribution, and overwhelmingly, marketing. This is partly because the publishers’ economic model is still based on bookstores, and the need to put thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of physical copies on shelves around the world. But what about those regional, special-interest, niche-market titles?
There are a number of new small publishers catering to niches. Combustion Books for anarchist steam-punk titles and Chelsea Green for sustainable living and farming titles like Harvey Ussery’s brilliant The Small-Scale Poultry Flock, for example. But I chose in 2007 to buy the bare-bones package and self-publish. I lined up my own editing (author Terry Davis, whose workshop I was attending, for story; my Dad, a master teacher of language and literature, for line-editing), sent in my file and my check, and they printed my book. That was just the beginning. I quickly learned that having a title, even on Amazon, does not make the registers ring. Marketing, getting the word out, getting people to look for it, took some real effort. Luckily, the internet offers people in niches an incredible opportunity to find kindred spirits, wherever they may be. I found teen-review websites where I could have my young adult novel read and reviewed by actual teens (they liked it), and I found a contest I could enter my book in (which it won). It’s still selling well, five years later.
But back to history. I had a delightful conversation this week with a woman in Maine who has written a memoir that should be published. It has humor, conflict, suspense, local flavor, and incredible human interest. But how to get it into print? Well, the good news is that, since I tried it in 2007, the self-publishing industry has gone through another generation of change. You can now publish on Amazon, Lulu, and a variety of other platforms, with much more format-flexibility than was available a few years ago and completely free of charge. And they pay much better than they used to back in the early days. Much better on a per-unit basis, in fact, than traditional publishers. If you know what you want to say, if you’re comfortable with the technical end of putting a book together (I like to remind myself that Knowlton and many of the people who published books in the past didn’t have a professional editor, either), and especially if you know who will want the book and how to reach them, self-publishing might be something to consider.
Course materials online
02/02/2012 18:54
More on PIPA/SOPA
01/31/2012 11:56
Dear Senator Ayotte,
Thank you for your response to my letter, and for your change of policy toward the two "anti-piracy" bills in question. As you say, it is not "breaking capitalism" to shut down a car dealer that sells stolen vehicles. However, I think it would be very bad policy to allow car dealers to be shut down merely on the accusation by a car manufacturer or a competing dealer that they had done wrong. This lack of due process and the power it places in the hands of media giants is one of the major differences between what you describe and the bills in question. Another difference is the fact that anyone who inadvertently links to content (even completely legal content) from an IP address accused of wrongdoing can be tarred with the same brush. This is an issue that doesn't have an immediate analog in the bricks and mortar world, but you might describe it as prosecuting anyone who ever bought a car from the hypothetical dealer in your example.
Clearly there's a limit to how far bricks and mortar analogies can take us when we legislate internet commerce and free speech. I hope our other elected officials can follow your example and raise this dialog to a level that will avoid the oversimplification that sometimes attends political debate in an election year.
Thank you,
Dan Allosso
dan@allosso.net
www.danallosso.com
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:06 AM, U.S. Senator Ayotte wrote:
January 31, 2012
Dear Dr. Allosso:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PROTECT IP; S. 968) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA; H.R. 3261). I appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, PROTECT IP and SOPA provoked a groundswell of grassroots activism across the Internet. This demonstrates how important the Internet is in our time, its growing prominence in influencing the political dialogue, and how citizens can make their voices heard. The input that I received from thousands of New Hampshire citizens highlighted the need to address concerns regarding Congress' legislative efforts to combat online piracy and copyright infringement.
PROTECT IP was originally scheduled to be considered in the Senate on January 24, 2012. Because of the outpouring of concern about the legislation as it continued to be developed, I could no longer support the legislation in its current form and withdrew my cosponsorship.
As many New Hampshire citizens have made clear, we cannot allow America's brightest ideas, products, art, and media to be stolen and sold by foreign criminal enterprises. PROTECT IP was supposed to be about stopping this foreign piracy. However, the legitimate concerns about government overreach warrant further consideration and careful deliberation, and I was pleased to see the bill pulled from the floor.
We must find a lawful and reasonable way to protect intellectual property rights. For example, shutting down a dealer selling stolen cars is not censorship or "breaking capitalism," it is protecting private property and preserving societal values and standards. We should seek to afford American copyright holders adequate protections against foreign thieves. Foreign rogue websites, online piracy, and counterfeiting threaten U.S. businesses, consumers, and many thousands of American jobs. We must be able to safeguard intellectual property without undermining Internet freedom.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important that I hear from the people I represent regarding the issues facing our country. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely, Kelly A. Ayotte U. S. Senator
KAA/mm
Thank you for your response to my letter, and for your change of policy toward the two "anti-piracy" bills in question. As you say, it is not "breaking capitalism" to shut down a car dealer that sells stolen vehicles. However, I think it would be very bad policy to allow car dealers to be shut down merely on the accusation by a car manufacturer or a competing dealer that they had done wrong. This lack of due process and the power it places in the hands of media giants is one of the major differences between what you describe and the bills in question. Another difference is the fact that anyone who inadvertently links to content (even completely legal content) from an IP address accused of wrongdoing can be tarred with the same brush. This is an issue that doesn't have an immediate analog in the bricks and mortar world, but you might describe it as prosecuting anyone who ever bought a car from the hypothetical dealer in your example.
Clearly there's a limit to how far bricks and mortar analogies can take us when we legislate internet commerce and free speech. I hope our other elected officials can follow your example and raise this dialog to a level that will avoid the oversimplification that sometimes attends political debate in an election year.
Thank you,
Dan Allosso
dan@allosso.net
www.danallosso.com
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:06 AM, U.S. Senator Ayotte wrote:
January 31, 2012
Dear Dr. Allosso:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PROTECT IP; S. 968) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA; H.R. 3261). I appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, PROTECT IP and SOPA provoked a groundswell of grassroots activism across the Internet. This demonstrates how important the Internet is in our time, its growing prominence in influencing the political dialogue, and how citizens can make their voices heard. The input that I received from thousands of New Hampshire citizens highlighted the need to address concerns regarding Congress' legislative efforts to combat online piracy and copyright infringement.
PROTECT IP was originally scheduled to be considered in the Senate on January 24, 2012. Because of the outpouring of concern about the legislation as it continued to be developed, I could no longer support the legislation in its current form and withdrew my cosponsorship.
As many New Hampshire citizens have made clear, we cannot allow America's brightest ideas, products, art, and media to be stolen and sold by foreign criminal enterprises. PROTECT IP was supposed to be about stopping this foreign piracy. However, the legitimate concerns about government overreach warrant further consideration and careful deliberation, and I was pleased to see the bill pulled from the floor.
We must find a lawful and reasonable way to protect intellectual property rights. For example, shutting down a dealer selling stolen cars is not censorship or "breaking capitalism," it is protecting private property and preserving societal values and standards. We should seek to afford American copyright holders adequate protections against foreign thieves. Foreign rogue websites, online piracy, and counterfeiting threaten U.S. businesses, consumers, and many thousands of American jobs. We must be able to safeguard intellectual property without undermining Internet freedom.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important that I hear from the people I represent regarding the issues facing our country. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely, Kelly A. Ayotte U. S. Senator
KAA/mm
Back to work
01/27/2012 20:06
I’ll probably post a lot of the material for this class on my own site. I’m trying to write it up into a course-pack/anti-textbook of sorts as I go through the semester. Much of that will probably find its way online too. And my proposal for the Historical Society’s conference in late May was accepted, so I’ll need to finish my biography of Knowlton in the next couple of months, too. The writing schedule I’ll be keeping may cut down a bit on my blogging, but by the end of this semester I should have some projects completed!
My letter to my Rep & Senators
01/18/2012 08:29
Dear Representative Bass,
The internet has evolved rapidly and in unexpected ways over the years, precisely because it has been relatively unhindered by top-down control. PIPA and SOPA are ill-conceived bills that will not only FAIL to stop the types of offshore abuses they are ostensibly designed to address, but they will stifle the free exchange of ideas and rapid evolution that the web has been all about.
Imagine if Soviet central planners of the 1970s had gained control of the internet. The people running big media and the telecoms are no smarter.
Freedom of speech is more important than an occasional copyright dispute in which a billionaire somewhere feels he's been robbed by some penniless high-school blogger. The internet is the modern-day equivalent of the presses that people like Thomas Paine published their pamphlets on in the 1770s. Don't go down in history as being against "Common Sense."
Sincerely,
Dan Allosso, PhD
author, history teacher
The internet has evolved rapidly and in unexpected ways over the years, precisely because it has been relatively unhindered by top-down control. PIPA and SOPA are ill-conceived bills that will not only FAIL to stop the types of offshore abuses they are ostensibly designed to address, but they will stifle the free exchange of ideas and rapid evolution that the web has been all about.
Imagine if Soviet central planners of the 1970s had gained control of the internet. The people running big media and the telecoms are no smarter.
Freedom of speech is more important than an occasional copyright dispute in which a billionaire somewhere feels he's been robbed by some penniless high-school blogger. The internet is the modern-day equivalent of the presses that people like Thomas Paine published their pamphlets on in the 1770s. Don't go down in history as being against "Common Sense."
Sincerely,
Dan Allosso, PhD
author, history teacher
