I have been dialoging with some friends who work with Chairman Lamar Smith about SOPA. I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on SOPA and respond to some of their concerns.

If you don’t know what SOPA is this video is a pretty good introduction.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Claim: SOPA only targets foreign websites.

The “inter” part is what makes the internet work. Congress has no idea how DNS servers work or what the technological ramifications of their law would be. Also, what makes a website foreign? My company Castle Media Group has servers all over the world.

SOPA does a lot more than block access to foreign sites. It is part of a very troubling series of laws. The way to stop piracy needs a more nuanced approach. Yet again Congress is trying to do open heart surgery with a chain saw.

Claim: SOPA won’t harm the internet.

I challenge SOPA supporters to find a single founder of the internet who backs this bill. As far as I know, the wizards of the internet reject SOPA to a man. In fact I challenge SOPA supporters to find one person who supports this bill who can accurately articulate what a DNS server is and how the DNS system works. The “Phone book for the web” definition the press uses is unclear and misleading.

Claim: SOPA will reduce online piracy.

SOPA has no solvency. Messing with DNS servers will do nothing to block unique IPs from sending data back and forth. So the result will be an encrypted, underground black market as full of pirated goods as the status quo. If this bill is passed, there would be technological workarounds in place before the bill even took effect. But the harms would persists for decades. Trying to get content off the internet with laws is like trying to get pee out of a pool with a net.

The harms of SOPA are huge. Laws regarding technology inhibit inovation since the laws persist long after the technological landscape has changed. If this bill was harmless, why would so many websites be protesting it?

Claim: 43 “digital piracy” sites generate an estimated 53 billion hits annually.

Be careful anytime anyone uses the phrase “hits” to talk about how much web traffic. A hit is a single server request be it a file, style sheet, a database query, a script, or an image. It is not uncommon for a single page view to generate dozens of hits and for a single website visitor to generate hundreds if not thousands of hits. I would estimate that every minute you spend on Facebook, Facebook gets 250 “hits.” Hits correlate to traffic about as much as RPM correlates with MPH in your car.

A much more valid metric is “page views” or “unique visitors.”

Claim: Online piracy costs America 200 billion dollars and thousands of jobs.

The number about lost revenue is misleading. First it may be based on bad information in the first place. If the estimators are using “hits” as a way of estimating traffic to pirated sites then their conclusions are based on faulty premises. The number is likely made up and not based on any sort of empirical research.

Secondly, the estimators fail to take into account the elasticity of prices. When a commodity is cheaper, people tend to consume more of that thing. Some commodities are more elastic than others. Energy is very inelastic. Entertainment is very elastic. So when entertainment is free, people consume a lot of that entertainment. You probably listen to more Pandora or FM Radio than songs you’ve purchased on iTunes for instance.

The higher prices are the more discriminating people become. Some movies you will wait to rent because you don’t think they are worth the price of a movie ticket, for example.

So to assume that if we could snap our fingers and remove all piracy that people would start paying for all the pirated content the currently consume is false. The money the industry claims to loose are based on growth rates that are completely unrealistic. $200 billion dollars? Really? The entire music industry is only a 20-30 billion dollar industry and the movie industry is not much bigger. There is no way they could have grown that big that fast in a piracy free world. Where on earth do they expect those 100 billion dollars to come from? Would consumers suddenly have more money to spend or would they just consume less media?

The Solution: Fewer Laws & More Innovation

The solution to piracy is technological not legal. Laws lack the flexibility needed to be effective. The Congress chases technology like a two year old child chases a squirrel. Technology adapts too quickly for the laws to do anything but harm law abiding citizens. The most effective enemy to Napster was the Apple iTunes store. Suing Napster (Which did not require SOPA by the way) did nothing the curb piracy. But the iTunes store makes buying legal content so easy that saving $0.99 to pirate a song is not worth the effort. I can listen to a song playing in a coffee shop, use an app to identify that song and then buy it all within three minutes and all on my iPhone.

This sort of inovation is why the music industry just announced growth in sales for the first time since 2004. The movie industry will see similar growth as they embrace “movies as an experience” and make it easier to legally rent internet movies on your TV. If Hollywood put half as much effort into usability as they put into lobbying, we would see a dramatic increase in sales and a decline in piracy. They need to make renting an online movie through your TV easy enough for my grandmother to do it.

Responding to technology should be like our response to speech. The answer to wrong speech is more speech not censorship. The answer to the wrong use of technology is more technology not regulation.

Nerds created the internet, the nerds can manage it. Congressmen should not regulate what they do not understand.

No related posts.

My goal is not to convince you to vote for Ron Paul. I’m sure your mind is already made up. My goal is to inform your views about our Foreign Policy. I have studied history and foreign affairs intensely over the last few years and have become convinced that our current foreign policy is dangerous and evil. Name any country in the world and I can give you an update on what is going on in that region and perhaps even the country itself.

I would like to address these flawed assumptions over the coming days. The first flawed assumption is that giving money to tyrants makes the world safer for US.

Wrong Assumption #1 Giving Foreign Aid Promotes US Regional Interests

Foreign Aid means giving money, food and guns to the leaders of other nations. They then sometimes use this money to rape their people to feed their soldiers. The money is supposed to help the poor. But, the problem with tyrants is that they are evil, and evil men don’t feed the poor even when you pay them to.

We gave or continue to give aid to the following regimes:

• Mubarak Regime (Egypt)
• Hussein Regime (Iraq)
• Taliban Regime (Afghanistan)
• Putin Regime (Russia)
• Gillani Regime (Pakistan)
• Wolde-Giorgis Regime (Ethiopia)
• Chavez Regime (Venezuela)
• Castro Regime (Cuba)
• Palestinian Authority Regime (Gaza Strip)
• Gaddafi Regime (Libya)
• The list goes on and on.

The shorter list is the tyrants we don’t aid. To my knowledge is Kim Jong il and Kim Jong-un of North Korea.

What is so sad about this list is that we have ended up going to war with most of these tyrants anyway.

I am convinced that Foreign Aid is evil and one of the biggest reasons that the third world stays poor. If you read the Old Testament, you learn that the poor stay poor not because they lack money. They stay poor because they lack justice. When we give food, guns and cash to tyrants we promote the very injustice that hurts the poor. Also, when food does make it to the people it puts local farmers out of work since they can’t compete with free food. Oh, and foreign aid is bankrupting our economy. Socialism is bad, very very bad.

Borrowing money from China to then give aid to tyrants is like borrowing cash from a loan shark to hire a drug dealer to shoot the homeless.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who opposes to Foreign Aid based on principle. The other candidates like aid but don’t think we can afford it right now.  Congressman Paul’s plan to cut 100% of foreign aid will help US and will promote justice around the world. It will also help Israel since we give seven times more money to Israel’s enemies than we give to Israel. Israel doesn’t need our money, Israel just found a huge oil reserve that has them set for years. More on Israel to come.

What do you think? Is foreign aid ever justified? Tomorrow we will discuss whether the number of terrorists is fixed or variable.

Related posts:

1. Wrong Assumption #3 Bullets Can Stop Radical Islam Bullets don’t stop ideas. History teaches us that when you...
2. Ron Paul Money Bomb If you don’t know who Ron Paul is or why...
3. Wrong Assumption #2 – Limited Number of Terrorists I think President Bush believed that there are a fixed...

First, Some Perspective

On September 11 2001

• 2,819 people died from terrorists.
• 3,700 people died from abortions.

We have had a 9/11 every day for the last 20 years. If you care about saving lives then terrorism is a distraction.

In 2001:

• 2,824 Americans died from terrorist attacks (2,819 9/11 deaths source + 5 anthrax deaths source).
• 16,037 Americans were murdered by other Americans (source).
• 42,196 died on American roadways (source).
• 853,485 died in American abortion facilities (source).

These numbers are from 2001; the year with the highest number of terrorism related deaths. You are more likely to die from lightning than from a terrorist in an airplane.

Looking at these numbers you should spend more time praying at abortion clinics and going to defensive driving than worrying about terrorists. If you are particularly concerned about saving life, get a concealed handgun. All of these things would be statistically more effective than groping people at the airport.

The The Science of Fear quotes a study that found if a plane crashed in America once per week, flying would still be safer than driving. When terrorism is put into context there is no rational justification for TSA’s invasions.

We are the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. To be free you must also be brave. Safety is not our god.

New procedures degrade our dignity.

Dignity is not a word you hear much any more. Martin Luther King Jr. marched for it. Everyone is born with it. The government wants to take it away.

Could you imagine anything more demeaning than the current TSA procedures? Getting ogled or fondled should not be part of the flying process. This is how the terrorists win: They scare us into abusing each other.

“But don’t other countries use similar procedures?”  You may ask.

Yes. But so what? Just because old world countries abuse their subjects gives us no justification to do likewise. Freedom and justice are what set us apart from the old world. That is why we left. Our ancestors wanted to come to a new world where citizens did not need to fear the government abusing them.

We are free! Why should we long to go back to the “safety” of slavery?

Terrorism doesn’t work.

The goal of terrorism is to strike terror into a population. This is their goal because terrorists lack the ability to actually harm.  They can’t conquer us, and even on their best day they can’t even pass the murder rate. An attack like 9/11 won’t work again. The old advice of “comply with hijackers” is gone. Hijacking only works when the passengers are docile, and the days of docile passengers came to an end when Flight 93 revolted.

Terrorism is not dangerous. Fear is. According to a study by the University of Michigan there were 1,018 additional traffic fatalities in 2001 because people were afraid to fly and, instead, chose to drive.

Terrorists have a very small tool belt. Hijacking doesn’t work and guns don’t work well on an armed population. Anthrax doesn’t work. Chemicals weapons only work when deployed with artillery or an air force. Bombs are really their only tool and bombs are a weak opponent for bomb-sniffing dogs and often require the bomber to sacrifice himself.

Once we decide to not let terrorism scare us, we rob the terrorists of their only effective weapon: fear.

Our Response

After we take a deep breath and stop panicking, this is what I think we should do in response to terrorism:

Bounce back

Our best response to terrorists is to show them they are ineffective. We do this by getting back to normal as soon as possible. This is what they do in Israel. After an attack they get back to business as fast as possible, and it frustrates the terrorists.

In hindsight, I wish we would have let commercial planes fly on September 12th.

Nuclear Protection

Nuclear bombs should be our primary focus. A suitcase nuke could depopulate a city for years. If we were wise we would spend the majority of our efforts on nuclear protection. Fortunately for us, nuclear weapons are heard to deploy by terrorists. Terrorists don’t have rockets or bombers so they need to sneak a Bomb into the country somehow.

Nuclear bombs give off radiation that can be picked up with special equipment. This radiation sniffing equipment is what we should be buying, not strip search scanners. We should have radiation scanners at every border crossing and at every airport. We should develop the technology to make compact scanners for every police car. Squad-car based scanners would more or less cover the whole country.

Airport Security

We should reset to pre 9/11 security and then make the following changes.

Change 1: Profiling – America is not being attacked by old women or small children. The threat comes from a few very specific profiles. People who fit a profile should go through a more strict screening process. Non-citizens should be particularly targeted. Profiling works in Israel and we would be wise to emulate them.

If positive profiles are too distasteful then we should at least use negative profiles. We should stop scanning minors and senior citizens. Has there ever been a terrorist older than 50? I doubt it.

Change 2: Background checks – Non-citizens traveling into and around this country should go through extensive background checks. I know we do this now but we could do it much better. Instead of funding an army of soldiers to topple governments we should have an army of spies infiltrating every terrorist organization in the world. Then when we check someone’s background we will actually have some useful data to check.

Change 3: Dogs – Bomb-sniffing dogs are effective and non intrusive.  I rarely see dogs at the airport. A dog should sniff every piece of luggage that goes onto a plane.

Change 4: Privatization – Airport screening is not a good role for the government.  Let the airlines do the screenings and they will compete on quality, safety, efficiency etc. If American Airlines wants to grope you and Delta doesn’t, the free market would reward the wiser company.

Typically when there is a successful terrorist attack, the airline that is hit goes out of business. Anyone remember Pan Am? The fear of bankruptcy motivates airlines toward quick and effective innovation.

Conclusion

Good policy is based on reason, not on irrational emotions like fear and revenge. If you look at America’s response to 9/11 you will find a lot more fear and revenge than reason. When you look at things rationally you see that changing the government in Iraq does not protect us from Saudi Arabian terrorists. You don’t fight non-governmental organizations by attacking governments. You don’t let terrorists scare you into destroying yourself.

Good policy is based on principles like life, liberty, justice, property and dignity. We can learn from other countries but we need to be careful what we bring over. What makes us different also makes us special.

What do you think? What should our response to 9/11 have been? What do you think about TSA’s new procedures?

Related posts:

1. Wrong Assumption #2 – Limited Number of Terrorists I think President Bush believed that there are a fixed...

For those of you who follow this blog you know that I endorsed Rick Perry back in September. So why would I now vote for Medina?

Enough people have asked me this question that I have decided to answer it here.

The strategic reason to back Medina.

In the political world there are two types of people: pragmatists and idealists.

Idealists are true believers.

Idealists have a political philosophy and their first loyalty is to that philosophy. They don’t compromise often and you can find them on the far ends of the isle. Public opinion does not sway them. Writing them does little good for their minds are made up.

Pragmatists want to get things done.

Pragmatists are drawn to power like a fat man to a Chinese buffet. They generally pick whatever party has the majority. If the party in power switches look for them to change parties as well.

You can get a pragmatist to make good policy but you generally have to pressure him first. He has to know enacting good policy will increase his power.

Right now Kay Bailey Hutchinson is one of the last of the Pro-Roe v Wade Republicans. Her existence makes pragmatic republicans feel safe waffling on abortion just like Kay does. The dance is always the same: Talk pro-life in the primary… avoid the issue after that.

If Medina gets more votes than Hutchinson it marks the end of Pro-Roe republicans in Texas. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is one of the best known Texas politicians ever. Medina is a no name from a small Texas town no one has heard of. A big reason Kay is falling behind is because she is Pro-Roe.

This has happened before.

When William Wilberforce’s bill to abolish the slave trade finally passed, it was by a 283 to 16 landslide. Why after 20 years of failure would the bill pass by so much? Wilberforce, the idealists finally got enough weight on his side. The pragmatist politicians realized they would get more power by voting for abolition. They all flopped over to his side all at once.

What will happen if Medina makes the run off? The pragmatists will see they can get more power when they are pro-life. They will flop over to the life side of the teeter totter. This may give us the weight we need to see real change.

We are talking state and nation wide implications here.

What I like about Medina.

I like how:

• Medina is a true believer in life, liberty & property.
• Medina has breathed new life into the Republican Party.
• Medina answered the questions in the debates.
• Medina is well studied. People criticize her lack of experience but never her lack of knowledge. She knows her stuff.
• Medina is an idealist.

I still like Perry.

While the cronyism and forcing STD vaccinations on 12 year old girls makes me squeamish, I generally like Rick Perry.

Every year however cold or empty he always speaks at the Texas Rally for Life. Perry is a true believer in life, regardless of his other shortcomings. Rick is also a family friend and a great guy. I fully intend to vote for him in November, assuming he wins the primary which I expect he will.

What do you think?

• Who do you plan to vote for?
• Why?
• Do you think a Medina/Perry run off will tip the balance of power pro-life?

Related posts:

1. Rick Perry – The Right Man for the Job Every election cycle people ask me who I support for...
2. Why March? Someone recently asked me what the point was to all...
3. How to Vote Twice on Tuesday Election day is here! Every cycle I am surprised how...

Lets break with tradition shall we? Lets look back through history and see what we can learn about what is about to happen in the future.

As King Solomon said,

“History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new. Sometimes people say, “Here is something new!” But actually it is old; nothing is ever truly new. We don’t remember what happened in the past, and in future generations, no one will remember what we are doing now.”

The Whig Party

America has always been a two party country. The system favors two parties so this may persist. However, the two parties we started with are not the two parties we have now. Back in the day the two major parties where the Federalist Party (Whig Party) and the Anti Federalist Party.

The Whig Party failed when it started compromising on fundamental issues. Those issues revolved around slavery specifically Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Missouri Compromise. The Whigs were over confident about their power and alienated their base.

Compromise led to division. Division led to greater compromise.

The Whigs were an anti slavery party or at least they talked like they were. But thier records failed to match their rhetoric. Northern Whigs got more and more disenchanted until finally they broke off and started their own party. They called themselves Republicans.

Within 15 years of supporting the Kansas-Nabraska Act, the Whigs were nothing but a memory. The Republicans completely replaced them. That moment for the Republicans may have been when they passed the Prescription Drug Benefit Program in 2006. History will tell us if that was the beginning of the end for the GOP.

Conclusion: The Republicans started as a Pro-Abolition coalition of Whigs.

Popular & Inexperienced Candidates

One former Whig gained favor with the people despite coming from an empty state on the frontier. He lacked experience and had generally failed at politics. But he had one thing for him: he was uncompromising Pro-Abolition. The people flocked to him and voted him into office.

His name was Abraham Lincoln and though a lifelong Whig he was elected as the first Republican president.

The transition from Whig to Republican was not overnight. It took between 10 and 15 years. All that is needed for history to repeat itself is for a handful of popular elected officials to switch from the old party to the new party.

The Tea Party is not going anywhere.

In just two years Ron Paul’s 4% has turned into Debora Medina‘s 24%. Win or loose in March the Tea Party is not through. If Scott Brown showed us anything, it is that you can’t take anything for granted.

Most of the passionate political activists right now are Tea Baggers. Other movements have passion but not like the Tea Party. Passion tends to spread and if it does it is only a matter of time before something will have to budge.

We will either see a change in GOP leadership or some new party.

Abortion is the kicker

The Republican Party was founded on one issue: Ending slavery. It slowly developed a more complete platform.

The Tea Party has one primary issue right now: less government.

We may see this shift. If pro-lifers like Debora Medina, Sarah Palin and Ron Paul keep leading we may see a big shift towards a more complete life affirming platform.

If the Republican Party keeps putting forth pro-choice candidates like Kay Baily Hutchinson and dead weights like John McCain then the shift may be faster than anyone expects.

The correct GOP response:

If the Republican Party wants to avoid the path of the Whig Party then it must do the following things:

• Share information and funding with TP activists. Keep them in the tent.
• Stop protecting compromised incumbents
• Be patient with folks new to the process
• Support term limits

Predicted GOP Response

• Withhold info and funding from TP activists. Exclude them from the tent.
• Protect compromised incumbents.
• Be mean to folks new to the system (treat them like they treated the Ron Paul People)
• Resist term limits

The democratic party has proved itself to be good at absorbing new movements. We will see if the republicans are able to do the same.

What do you think?

• Am I off my rocker?
• Do you think Tea Party candidates like Deborah Medina have a chance in the cycle?
• What do you think about the Tea Party?
• Is the tea party bad for America?

Related posts:

1. The Problem with the Constitution Party I feel that the Constitution Party misses the essence of...
2. Why vote for Debra Medina? For those of you who follow this blog you know...

The Philosophy of Liberty video is one the best presentations of any set of political principles I have ever seen. This video communicates more in 8 minutes than most 200 page books.

If you plan to vote in the next election or compete in speech and debate I strongly recommend you watch this 8 minute video .

Related posts:

1. Almighty – Our Pro-Life Music Video My dad woke up one day and decided to make...
2. There is No Such Thing as Slavery Recently, I watched Gandhi. In that movie, Ganhi said that...
3. Catholic Priest Decries the Evils of Video Games Here are some interesting thoughts from Father Raymond J. de...

Sure they can threaten, reward, manipulate and deceive – the tools of Satan and slave owners. But these devices have no power unless the slaves give them power. God endows individuals with certain inalienable rights. He will never take them away and neither will anyone else. They must be given up.

Three hundred years ago as the British colonized North America and they tried to turn the American Indians into slaves. They bought them from the Chiefs and capturing them in battle. But their efforts proved fruitless as the Indians despite floggings and torture refused the yoke of slavery. They would die but they would not work. You could call this laziness but I think they, like Gahndi, knew the truth. There is no such thing as slavery.

The British then turned to the old world where thousands of years of tyranny had trained people that freedom could be taken. Soon the seeds of slavery were planted in America. The weeds from those years still pop up today through racial hatred and distrust. But no amount of weeds can cover up the simple truth that no one can make you do something you don’t choose to do.

Our freedom, contains a challenge. When we stand before God on the Day of Judgment we will be able to offer up no excuses for our choices. The devil didn’t make us sin and neither did God. We choose to sin in full knowledge that what you were doing was wrong.

Through our choices we become slaves to sin. Soon it is all we know. Freedom is easily tossed aside but nearly impossible to regain without death. I can think of no time in history where a people became free without bloodshed. The price of freedom is blood either of peaceful protesters(India) or an army(USA). Someone has to die to relight the torch of freedom.

So while our choices get us into the slavery of sin we cannot through an act of our will become free from sin. Someone has to die. Unfortunately, our freedom allows us go back to the yoke of slavery. We are doing this in America as we pass laws like the Patriot Act and Campaign Finance Reform (both incidentally backed by republicans). And we do this as Christians as we turn back to the detestable practices we once knew.

Paul asked the Galatians why they turned back to the slavery of the law and I must ask Americans why we are turning back to an imperialistic form of government we once so adamantly opposed. Is our goal to become the next British Empire? Have we been eating our national vegetables so that when we grow up we can be like mother England? The sun never set on the British empire. Is this not already the case with our American empire? At what point in the earth’s rotation does the sun not shine on an American soldier occupying a foreign land?

When we give away our liberties we are either killing our children who must die to win them back, or we are forging their chains.

God used Gandhi, a pagan, to humiliate “Christian” England. I can’t help but wonder if he will do the same to us. God is not American and he will never be on our side. But he gives us the ability to choose to join His side. I suggest we should. If you use your liberty to vote, make sure to vote for liberty. Otherwise do the nation a service and use your freedom to stay home.

Related posts:

1. The Philosophy of Liberty (Video) The Philosophy of Liberty video is one the best presentations...