Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Friday, March 09, 2012

Sex Ed Curriculum for Conservatives



Recent national kerfuffles over abortion and contraception access bring up many important questions: Should employers retain control over your wages and benefits after they sign them over to you? Is contraception, a service used by 99 percent of American women, really so controversial? How much state regulation should there be over women's most private decisions? But amidst all those questions is one overarching one: Do conservatives need a crash course in sex ed?

image

Radio show host Rush Limbaugh speaks at a forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation on the similarities between the war on terrorism and the television show 24, in Washington, June 23, 2006. (REUTERS/Micah Walter)

Usually, when we think of the sex education debate, we think of junior high and high school kids putting condoms on bananas. But recent events indicate that this country needs remedial sex education for adults, specifically social conservatives who wish to hold forth on reproductive rights without seeming to know the basics regarding who has sex and how it works in 2012. With that in mind, I designed a quick curriculum for these surprisingly necessary courses.
Intercourse 101: It Takes Two to Tango. After voting for a mandatory ultrasound bill that serves no other purpose than to shame abortion patients for their sexuality, Virginia delegate David Albo complained in the legislature that he's not getting the sex he feels entitled to from his wife. CNSNews columnist Craig Bannistershamed women on the pill for being "sex-crazed co-eds" who exhibit too much "sexual zeal" — before ending his piece by wistfully wishing he could have sex with all the sexually active women he just insulted. Rush Limbaugh, who is on his fourth marriage and is an admitted Viagra user , called Sandra Fluke , a Georgetown University law student who testified before Congress about her use of contraception, a "slut" and a "prostitute."
In this first section of the remedial sex education course, we will discuss this sexual double standard: When having sex, men are behaving well and women behaving badly. The midterm will be an essay on the following prompt: "If women are supposed to say no to sex, whom do you propose straight men sleep with?"
Contraception 101: History as Prologue. Many conservatives appear to believe that prior to the Obama administration requiring employers to fully cover contraceptive care as part of their health plans, contraception wasn't considered a medical service, but something more like a party item you pick up with your beer and cigarettes. Tina Korbe of Hot Air argued that supporters of the new regulation "labor under the illusion that contraception is a medical necessity." Limbaugh argued that health insurance covering contraception means women are "paid to have sex." The reaction on the right suggests that this is the first time in history someone has suggested that contraception care be included in general health benefits.
During this portion of the class, we will look at the history of medicalized birth control. Students will learn (in conjunction with another mandatory class, The Pill 101) that the birth control pill has always been controlled by doctors and pharmacies, and that insurance companies treat it as medical care by offering the drug with a co-pay. Special attention will be paid to the 28 states that already require contraception coverage, the existing Medicaid coverage of contraception, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision that found that contraception coverage is a normal part of women's healthcare that should be covered by healthcare plans.
Premarital Sex 101: A Quantitative Look. Underlying many of the arguments over women's reproductive healthcare is a widespread fear of women using these rights to have sex outside of marriage. During the Arizona Republican primary debate, Rick Santorum blamed contraception for the problem of teen pregnancy, presuming that teenagers in a contraception-free world would instead abstain. Utah Republicanstate representative Bill Wright defended a bill banning discussion of contraception in schools by saying: "Why don't we just be honest with them upfront that sex outside marriage is devastating?"
Contrary to students' expectations, there is no high-level math prerequisite for this course. The statistics involved are relatively straightforward. Students will learn that 95 percent of Americans have premarital sex and have done so for decades without bringing ruin to the nation. In addition, students will read literature showing that the teen pregnancy rate actually declined after the sexual revolution, leaving it at half the rate it was in the 1950s. Students will be asked to research why it is that blue states, where residents are more likely to use contraception and delay marriage, have lower rates of divorce and teen pregnancy .
The Pill 101: A Scientific Look. The ignorance on display on the right regarding the birth control pill, which has been around as a contraceptive for over 50 years, has been astounding. Limbaugh's comment — "she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills" — indicates that he believes there's a correlation between the number of sexual encounters and the number of pills necessary. Limbaugh also seems to think mothers and women who use birth control are mutually exclusive categories, saying: "How do you become a mom if you're into birth control?" Additionally, with words such as "slut," "prostitute" and "sex-crazed" flying around to describe women on hormonal contraception, it appears many conservatives believe that the drugs exist primarily for use by single women with multiple partners.
Students in our remedial sex ed course will take their time learning about hormonal contraception. They will learn that women on the pill must take one every day for it to work, no matter how much sex they're having. Students will discover that monogamy isn't enough to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thus married and monogamous women use the pill just as single women do. To drive home what not using contraception would mean for women, married and otherwise, students will be asked to watch the TLC show about the Duggar family , with its 19 children, and then offer a five-minute presentation in class.
As evidenced by the ignorant rot tumbling out of various right-wing mouths in response to these controversies, a curriculum of this kind is sorely needed. Perhaps female Democrats in Congress can write a bill funding Sex Education for Grown-Up Pundits and help elevate the conversation with a little basic understanding.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Microsoft, Google and Netflix want to add DRM-hooks to W3C HTML5 standard



Microsoft, Google and Netflix want to add DRM-hooks to W3C HTML5 standard


A proposed anti-copying extension for the WC3's standard for HTML5 has been submitted by representatives of Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The authors take pains to note that this isn't "DRM" — because it doesn't attempt to hide keys and other secrets from the user — but in a mailing list post, they later admitted that this could be "addressed" by running the browser inside a proprietary hardware system that hideverything from the user.

Other WC3 members — including another prominent Googler, Ian Hickson — have called for the withdrawal of the proposal. Hickson called it "unethical." I agree, and would add "disingenuous," too, since the proposal disclaims DRM while clearly being intended to form a critical part of a DRM system.
In an era where browsers are increasingly the system of choice for compromising users' security and privacy, it is nothing short of madness to contemplate adding extensions to HTML standards that contemplate designing devices and software to deliberately hide their workings from users, and to prevent users from seeing what they're doing and changing that behavior if it isn't in their interests.
Writing on Ars Technica, Ryan Paul gives a good blow-by-blow look at the way that this extension is being treated in the W3C:
Mozilla's Robert O'Callahan warned that the pressure to provide DRM in browsers might lead to a situation where major browser vendors and content providers attempt to push forward a suboptimal solution without considering the implications for other major stakeholders.
Some of the discussion surrounding the Encrypted Media proposal seem to validate his concerns. Mozilla's Chris Pearce commented on the issue in a message on the W3C HTML mailing list and asked for additional details to shed light on whether the intended content protection scheme could be supported in an open source application.
"Can you highlight how robust content protection can be implemented in an open source webrowser?" he asked. "How do you guard against an open source web browser simply being patched to write the frames/samples to disk to enable (presumably illegal) redistribution of the protected content?"
Netflix's Mark Watson responded to the message and acknowledged that strong copy protection can't be implemented in an open source Web browser. He deflected the issue by saying that copy protection mechanisms can be implemented in hardware, and that such hardware can be used by open source browsers.
"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps(Thanks, Rob! )

Friday, February 17, 2012

Bruce Schneier's Liars and Outliers: how do you trust in a networked world?



Bruce Schneier's Liars and Outliers : how do you trust in a networked world?

John Scalzi's Big Idea introduces Bruce Schneier's excellent new book Liars and Outliers , and interviews Schneier on the work that went into it. I read an early draft of the book and supplied a quote: "Brilliantly dissects, classifies, and orders the social dimension of security-a spectacularly palatable tonic against today's incoherent and dangerous flailing in the face of threats from terrorism to financial fraud." Now that the book is out, I heartily recommend it to you.
 
It's all about trust, really. Not the intimate trust we have in our close friends and relatives, but the more impersonal trust we have in the various people and systems we interact with in society. I trust airline pilots, hotel clerks, ATMs, restaurant kitchens, and the company that built the computer I'm writing this short essay on. I trust that they have acted and will act in the ways I expect them to. This type of trust is more a matter of consistency or predictability than of intimacy.
Of course, all of these systems contain parasites. Most people are naturally trustworthy, but some are not. There are hotel clerks who will steal your credit card information. There are ATMs that have been hacked by criminals. Some restaurant kitchens serve tainted food. There was even an airline pilot who deliberately crashed his Boeing 767 into the Atlantic Ocean in 1999.
My central metaphor is the Prisoner's Dilemma, which nicely exposes the tension between group interest and self-interest. And the dilemma even gives us a terminology to use: cooperators act in the group interest, and defectors act in their own selfish interest, to the detriment of the group. Too many defectors, and everyone suffers — often catastrophically.
Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Proposed Law will Force Advertisers to Add a Disclaimer on the Ad



by Alia Beard Rau - Feb. 14, 2012 10:57 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com

Women have wrinkles, pores and curves. And there's a movement across the world to make sure advertisers can no longer pretend otherwise.
Now, that movement has come to Arizona.
House Bill 2793, proposed by Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, would require advertisers who alter or enhance a photo to put a disclaimer on that ad alerting customers that "Postproduction techniques were made to alter the appearance in this advertisement. When using this product, similar results may not be achieved."
The bill has little to no chance of success. But Hobbs said that's OK.
"We just wanted to bring it to the table and start a discussion," she said. "We need to bring attention to these body-image issues, especially with young girls. Girls need to know that they don't have to look perfect."
Arizona appears to be the first state in the nation to consider such a bill. There are ongoing efforts to get Congress to take up the matter. Several other countries also regulate or are considering regulating such advertising.


Hobbs said YWCA Maricopa County brought the idea to her.
Sam Richard, who serves on the YWCA Maricopa County board of directors, said the bill is modeled after laws in the United Kingdom.
"As an organization, we are all about empowering women and eliminating discrimination," Richard said. "We want to make sure that young women get a better start and better self-image."
He said girls need to understand that these photos aren't all real. Someone has airbrushed out the model's wrinkles and pores, or put a woman's head on top of a computer-generated perfect body.
"You need to disclose that so our young women don't grow up thinking a poreless face is possible," he said. "That's not the way that I think anyone wants to raise their daughters."
But Louie Moses, creative director of the Phoenix-based Moses Anshell advertising agency, said the advertising industry should be allowed to police itself.
"I don't like legislation that tells us what to do and what not to do in marketing," Moses said. "I know what's right."
He agreed that the evolution of photo-manipulation programs has made it nearly impossible for an average consumer to tell if a photo is real or fake. But he said legitimate advertising companies don't abuse that.
"It's one thing to make the sky bluer. It's another thing to make my body look perfect," he said. "And with the companies we represent, we see an advantage to choosing to tell the truth."
Moses also said people often blame advertising agencies for too many of the evils of society.
"People are always screaming about the images out there, but I think they are overlooking the easiest way to dispel those things," he said, suggesting parents strive to be their children's role models. "We don't want our media raising our kids."
The House Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the bill this morning, but may not actually vote on it. The bill has to have a vote to move forward.
Seth Matlins, co-founder of Los Angeles-based online women's magazine Off Our Chests, supports Hobbs' effort, calling it "extraordinary."
Off Our Chests is behind the push for similar federal legislation it calls the Media and Public Health Act. The National Eating Disorders Association and other groups have joined the push for a federal law, but no member of Congress has yet agreed to carry it.
"I'm thrilled (Hobbs) is doing this. I haven't heard of any other states trying it," Matlins said.
He said manipulated photo ads create unobtainable beauty ideals.
"People are left feeling worse about themselves because they don't look like something that actually nobody looks like," he said. "We're trying to help the makers of culture understand the relationship between what they do and how people feel."


Monday, February 13, 2012

BBC Reports on America's Homeless Tent Cities



The world's longest running investigative TV show on BBC One
America's homeless resort to tent cities

'We don't have dinner at home'
Panorama's Hilary Andersson comes face to face with the reality of poverty in America and finds that, for some, the last resort has become life in a tented encampment.
Just off the side of a motorway on the fringes of the picturesque town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, a mismatched collection of 30 tents tucked in the woods has become home - home to those who are either unemployed, or whose wages are so low that they can no longer afford to pay rent.
Conditions are unhygienic. There are no toilets and electricity is only available in the one communal tent where the campers huddle around a wood stove for warmth in the heart of winter.
Ice weighs down the roofs of tents, and rain regularly drips onto the sleeping campers' faces as they sleep.
Tent cities have sprung up in and around at least 55 American cities - they represent the bleak reality of America's poverty crisis.
Black mould
According to census data, 47 million Americans now live below the poverty line - the most in half a century - fuelled by several years of high unemployment.
One of the largest tented camps is in Florida and is now home to around 300 people. Others have sprung up in New Jersey and Portland.

Hilary Andersson presents Panorama: Poor America
BBC One, Monday, 13 February at 8.30pm
Then available in the UK on the BBC iPlayer.
In the Ann Arbor camp, Alana Gehringer, 23, has had a hacking cough for the last four months.
"The black mould - it was on our pillows, it was on our blankets, we were literally rubbing our faces in it sleeping every night," she said of wintering in a tent.
The camp is run by the residents themselves, with the help of a local charity group. Calls have come in from the hospital emergency room, the local police and the local homeless shelter to see if they can send in more.
"Last night, for example, we got a call saying they had six that couldn't make it into the shelter and… they were hoping that we could place them… So we usually get calls, around nine or 10 a night," said Brian Durance, a camp organiser.
Michigan's Republican-controlled state government has been locked into a programme of severe budget cuts in an attempt to balance its books.
The cuts have included benefits for many of the state's poorest residents.
Between the cuts and the economic conditions pinching, there is increased pressure on homeless shelters.
Michigan's Lieutenant Governor, Brian Calley, was asked about the reality of public agencies in his state suggesting the homeless live in tents.
"That is absolutely not acceptable, and we have to take steps and policies in order to make sure that those people have the skills they need to be independent, and it won't happen overnight," he said.
Depression-type poverty
There are an estimated 5,000 people living in the dozens of camps that have sprung up across America.
The largest camp, Pinella's Hope in central Florida - a region better known for the glamour of Disneyworld - is made up of neat rows of tents spread out across a 13-acre plot.

The Catholic charity that runs it has made laundry available, as well as computers and phones.
Many of the camps are organised and hold regular meetings to divide up camp chores and agree on community rules. They have become semi-permanent homes for some residents, who see little prospect of getting jobs soon.
These tent cities - and this level of poverty - are images that many Americans associate with the Great Depression.
Unemployment in America today has not reached the astronomical levels of the 1930s, but barring a short spike in 1982, it has not been this high since the Depression era.
There are now 13 million unemployed Americans, which is three million more than when President Barack Obama was first elected.
The stark reality is that many of them are people who very recently lived comfortable middle-class lives.
For them, the economic downturn came too fast and many have been forced to trade their middle-class homes for lives in shelters, motels and at the far extreme, tented encampments.
Panorama: Poor America, BBC One, Monday, 13 February at 20:30 GMT then available in the UK on the BBC iPlayer.

Thursday, February 09, 2012

RIAA Chief Whines That SOPA Opponents Were "Unfair"



First time submitter shoutingloudly writes "In a NY Times op-ed today, RIAA chief Cary H. Sherman accuses the opponents of SOPA of having engaged in shady rhetorical tactics . He (wrongly) accuses opponents such as Wikipedia and Google of having disseminated misinformation about the bills. He lashes out at the use of the term 'censorship,' which he calls a 'loaded and inflammatory term.' Most /. readers will get the many unintentional jokes in this inaccurate, hypocritical screed by one of the leaders of the misinformation-and-inflammatory-rhetoric-wielding content industry lobby." A gem: "As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn't take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That's partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don't recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact."

FAA Bill Authorizes Surveillance Drones Over US




fyngyrz writes "Congress passed a bill this week that makes it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace . From the article: 'The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015. Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.'"

Monday, February 06, 2012

Ex-FCC Chair: Spectrum Plan "Single Worst Telecom Bill I've Seen"




"Former FCC chairman Reed Hundt made waves when he called the House spectrum auction legislation 'the single worst telecom bill' he's seen. The legislation, which would severely restrict the FCC's ability to place conditions on spectrum auctions , is seen as a non-starter in the Senate where a bipartisan group of senators including John Kerry (D — Mass.) and Jerry Moran (R — Kan.) have signaled strong opposition to the House approach to authorizing spectrum auctions. In this interview, Hundt outlines his major objections to the House bill and describes what he would do differently to make more spectrum available."

Saturday, February 04, 2012

Lawsuit: You Can't Charge Me With Downloading Porn Because You Can't Copyright Obscenity




For the first several years of the entertainment industry's crackdown on online piracy, American pornographers did very little to go after the people who filled up gigabyte after gigabyte of hard drive space with bittorrented x-rated material. But in recent years, realizing there is money to be made by merely threatening "John Doe" defendants with making their names and downloading habits public, that has begun to change. But one California woman is fighting back, claiming that the porn she didn't violate copyright laws because the porn she's accused of downloading isn't copyrightable.
First off, the plaintiff in the case says she never downloaded the particular flesh flick she's been accused of acquiring illegally. And even if she had bittorrented the movie, she says that she and others being targeted by a litigious porn company did nothing wrong in the first place.
The woman goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers for her explanation of why copyright law doesn't pertain in this case.
From the lawsuit:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the U.S. Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings."
Thus, copyright is authorized only for works which promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Horizontal Stare Decisis or Circuit law binds all courts within a particular circuit, including the court of appeals itself… "[T]he first panel to consider an issue sets the law not only for all the inferior courts in the circuit, but also future panels of the court of appeals… Once a panel resolves an issue in a precedential opinion, the matter is deemed resolved, unless overruled by the court itself sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court" or "unless Congress changes the law.")
Early Circuit law in California held that obscene works did not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and thus cannot be protected by copyright.
Subsequent non-en banc decisions by the Ninth Circuit failed to follow this prior circuit decision in California.
Given the absence of any subsequent en-banc Ninth Circuit decisions, Supreme Court precedent, or changes in the Constitution that copyright is authorized for works which does not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, the subsequent Ninth Circuit decisions are void and do not constitute binding precedent.
[Defendant]'s work does not promote the progress of science.
[Defendant]'s work does not promote the useful arts.
[Defendant] has judicially admitted that its work is adult pornography.
[Defendant]'s work depicts obscene material.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that to create the work, [Defendant] and its agents and/or its employees violated laws which prohibited pimping, pandering, solicitation and prostitution, including any claims of conspiracy.
[Defendant]'s work depicts criminal acts and/or conduct.
[Defendant]'s work is not copyrightable.
She also alleges that the pornographer knowingly allowed users of bittorrent sites to post this movie and others without issuing a DMCA take-down notice, thus turning these sites into "honeypots so they could continue to log IP address[es]" of users for future litigation.
Once porn companies put a name to that IP address, it's not uncommon for them to threaten litigation that would seek six-figure penalties and result in the public knowing that defendants downloaded x-rated films. Many defendants settle for a few thousand dollars with the hope that they remain listed as "John Doe."

Is Pornography Copyrightable? [Courthouse News]

Stephen Colbert's SuperPAC vs United States Supreme Court



Stephen Colbert's SuperPAC hurts the Supreme Court's feelings?

In Slate , Dahlia Lithwick examines the impact that Stephen Colbert's SuperPAC is having on public perception of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United , which establishes that "corporate personhood" means that corporations can make unlimited contributions to political campaigns. Dahlia implies that the Court, which has always maintained an aloofness from public life (no cameras, no press office) is smarting under Colbert's withering sarcasm, and that people are responding as well. For example, Colbert's SuperPAC backed Herman Cain (not a candidate) in the South Carolina race, and the voters put him ahead of Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.
Then last June, like a winking, eyebrow-wagging Mr. Smith, Colbert went to Washington and testified before the FEC, which granted him permission to launch his super PAC (over the objections of his parent company Viacom) and accept unlimited contributions from his fans so he might sway elections. (He tweeted before his FEC appearance that PAC stands for "Plastic And/Or Cash.") In recent weeks, Colbert has run several truly insane attack ads (including one accusing Mitt Romney of being a serial killer). Then, with perfect comedic pitch, Colbert handed off control of his super PAC to Jon Stewart (lampooning the FEC rules about coordination between "independent PACS" and candidates with a one-page legal document and a Vulcan mind meld). Colbert then managed to throw his support to non-candidate Herman Cain in the South Carolina primary, placing higher on the ballot than Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.
The line between entertainment and the court blurred even further late last month when Colbert had former Justice John Paul Stevens on his show to discuss his dissent in Citizens United. When a 91-year-old former justice is patiently explaining to a comedian that corporations are not people, it's clear that everything about the majority opinion has been reduced to a punch line.
Colbert v. the Court (via 3 Quarks Daily )

Friday, January 27, 2012

Infographic: SOPA & PIPA Explained



We've had a lot of discussion about SOPA and PIPA recently, the bills that want to cripple the internet , but there are still plenty of people who aren't clear on the issues. And although the bills have been shelved for now , similar threats (e.g., ACTA ) loom and it's wise to stay informed of the issues at stake. This infographic lays SOPA's and PIPA's legal and technical technical details out pretty clearly.
The graphic from Lumin Consulting covers the main issues and arguments against these bills, including mis-labeling of sites and potential for abuse, based on sources such as Reddit's technical examination of SOPA and Protect IP . The nice thing about infographics is when they're done well, they're easy to scan and read, and this one, as Search Engine Journal notes, is something even non-technical people may understand. So if you know someone who is still unclear about these bills, pass it along. Here's the full image (click to expand and or right-click to save to disk):

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Colorado Judge Mandates Defendant Decrypts Laptop Hard Drive

In the order issued yesterday, the court dodged the question of whether requiring Fricosu to type a passphrase into the laptop would violate the Fifth Amendment. Instead, it ordered Fricosu to turn over a decrypted version of the information on the computer. While the court didn't hold that Fricosu has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege not to reveal that data, it seemed to implicitly recognize that possibiity. The court both points out that the government offered Fricosu immunity for the act of production and forbids the government from using the act of production against her. We think Fricosu not only has a valid privilege against self-incrimination, but that the immunity offered by the government isn't broad enough to invalidate it. Under Supreme Court precedent, the government can't use the act of production or any evidence it learns as a result of that act against Fricosu.
The court then found that the Fifth Amendment "is not implicated" by requiring Fricosu to turn over the decrypted contents of the laptop, since the government independently learned facts suggesting that Fricosu had possession and control over the computer. Furthermore, according to the court, "there is little question here but that the government knows of the existence and location of the computer's files. The fact that it does not know the specific content of any specific documents is not a barrier to production." We disagree with this conclusion, too. Neither the government nor the court can say what files the government expects to find on the laptop, so there is testimonial value in revealing the existence, authenticity and control over that specific data. If Fricosu decrypts the data, the government could learn a great deal it didn't know before.


In sum, we think the court got it wrong.