More Politix!

A professor from Iowa is set to battle AT+T over the phrase "Freedom of Expression." He trademarked it, now they're using it in an ad campaign. Get the full story here. Spurred on by lawsuit-loving companies, the world of intellectual property law is getting crazier and crazier. But since it is, here's hoping that this professor can retire on AT+T's mistake--you know what they'd do if the situation were reversed.



Also, Jon Schwarz sends this link to Condi Rice's OpEd in today's Times. Like so much of this kind of thing, it makes sense if you don't read it too closely or think about it too much. Here are Jon's comments:



"Mike--

Here's the relevant quote:

'Iraq's declaration [to the United Nations] even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word... and presented as original text.'



Dear god, are there NO DEPTHS to which these Iraqi monsters won't sink?



Also, I like how [later in the article] she mentions the warheads that were found, and then says, a million people could die! die! die! if Iraq used different warheads with a different chemical weapon. Too bad she didn't mention the millions who could die if Saddam develops the ability to shoot high powered laser beams out of his eyes."



My immediate thought was: she's saying that since Saddam could someday kill a million people, we ought to beat him to it. It's reductive, I know, and somebody should put a bullet through Saddam's head, I agree--but let's always keep in mind that war is an extremely blunt instrument; are we determined to destroy Iraq in order to save it? And the unspoken assumption throughout this whole farce has been that American lives are worth more than Iraqi ones. While that's very flattering to Americans like me, we shouldn't be surprised if that kind of attitude makes the rest of the world skeptical regarding our intentions.



And finally, a dose of sanity from the UK's Independent, courtesy of English political satirist Mark Steel. As I said to Editor Simon, who forwarded me the link, "That type of talk doesn't fly over here; Jon and I submitted it for ten years. The center has drifted so far right that mainstream publications think it's radical, and the radical outlets that remain (as small as they are) are so embattled that they feel they can't lessen the seriousness of their message one iota. And television...well, it equates Saddam with Britney Spears, and calls it 'satire.' It's not--one is (to use a phrase from Orianna Fallaci) one of "those bastards who decide our lives," and the other is a meaningless distraction made flesh to sell product."



Here's where I stand, at least today: Saddam's a brutal thug and should be removed. That's what the UN is for, or should be. One of the biggest reasons the United Nations can't, or won't, keep the peace is that since Reagan, the US hasn't been behind it. There are a bunch of reasons for this: our nativist/isolationist strain; the black helicopter crowd; and not least, raw political utility. US Presidents don't get a bounce when the UN rides to the rescue. And you could make a case for our keeping the UN weak precisely for conflicts like this one with Iraq: the winner gets all the oil. The man's got to go, but the protestors are right to suspect that Bush and his cronies are only interested in short-term, very personal gain. Does anybody really believe that a war with Iraq will diminish the threat of terrorism, in the short or long-term? Does anybody really believe that oil reserves aren't what's pushing us in Iraq while North Korea continues to froth? I despise the dishonesty, fuzzy thinking and paternalism--that's a clear and present danger, just as much as Saddam. No reasonable person thinks Saddam should stay, and the fact that reservations about the war are immediately categorized as being pro-Saddam shows just how debased we've allowed America's political discourse to become.



If we are set on being the world's policeman, and it seems that we are, then we must be just, or we will be punished for all the inequalities in the world, whether we created them or not. I, for one, am not looking forward to this. Working through a strong UN--becoming a full partner in international activities--will mean that sometimes, we won't get all of the pie--but it will also mean that we won't have to beat all comers from now until the Rapture to keep it. And does anybody else wonder if there's a connection between thinking Jesus is going to come any day now and go-it-aloneism? If we can just hold on until the ultimate Cavalry comes...It makes a certain twisted sense, doesn't it?