link to: 11:12 [GMT-6]

Mumbling While Cairo Burns

 

Hosni Mubarek — who is what post-Second-Thirty-Years'-War westerners think of as a "third-world strongman" — finally addressed the Egyptian people last night. In Modern Standard Arabic, not Egyptian dialect. Imagine, for a moment, that Obama had given the State of the Union address in formal Queen's English (treating most collective nouns as plural — "the company are" rather than "the company is" — and so on)... and that there was an even greater division in the common language called "English" than appears in ordinary public discourse. Imagine, for a moment, Hugo Chávez lapsing into the classical Spanish of Don Quixote while giving yet another fiery anti-American address at some OAS conference. Now think back, for a moment, to what Mubarek did... and keep in mind "Johnson"'s mistaken embellishment. Mubarek's speech was not aimed entirely at the Egyptian people, even though it was broadcast to them. It was also aimed at the rest of the Arab world, and to a lesser extent the world outside the Middle East that — when it is familiar with Arabic at all — knows only Modern Standard Arabic.¹

That leads to an interesting inference from Mubarek's speech, and some further musings in general on the situation in Egypt (and elsewhere). Were I placing bets — and I don't, not when lives are on the line — I would bet that at least part of Mubarek's motivation for both the speech and the manner in which he gave it were to convince another Arab power (perhaps Saudi Arabia, perhaps somewhere else) to grant him asylum if he needs to flee Egypt. And by "convince another Arab power," I mean the polity there, not just the formal leaders. By making at least some of the right noises, he is laying the ground for believing that granting him asylum would not be just giving him a power base for a return strike, or for destablizing their own (less than democratic) regime.

But what this really points out — and the Western powers have not been helping, at all, over the past six decades — is that dictators are people too, with families and friends that they want to keep safe. Imagine, for a moment, that Mubarek capitulates and relinquishes power at daybreak next Friday. What guarantees do he, and his family, and his friends, have against retribution? The Romanians didn't execute just former dicator Nicolai Ceauşescu, but his wife too (a thoroughly repulsive individual from all accounts), and — less publicly — a number of other family members over the succeeding years. The continuing proceedings against Radovan Karadžić, however well-founded they are in fact and in principle, undoubtedly frighten dictators who fear being tried by their enemies in courts they do not control (and probably cannot understand) for actions that they continue to believe were justified, necessary, and appropriate.

Perhaps the way forward is some foreign aid from elsewhere... such as South Africa. Although the truth-and-reconciliation process has been imperfect, it has done quite well at preventing attainder, whether by legislative act or otherwise. In short, dictators are people too, and their personal concerns have to be recognized (even if reviled in private) to give them the personal security to exit gracefully. That, in the end, is the point of democracy: That the loser of an election is not going to be thrown in jail merely for losing, and that his/her family won't be either. Even though Fox News hasn't figured that out yet, it is the entire point of all of those freedoms that President Obama mentioned last night: That nations, peoples, and individuals are strengthened by engaging with (and hopefully learning from) dissent, not by suppressing it. The obvious difficulty that Mubarek faces is the very high probability that if he leaves power he, and his family, and his friends, will at best be tried in hostile courts... and will be more probably killed.

I do not defend Mubarek's continued hold on office; I have never been a fan of the "yes, he's a dictatorial bastard, but he's our dictatorial bastard" brand of foreign policy that has been popular in the West since colonialism began disintegrating. I am only suggesting that understanding his personal stakes helps explain why he has not yet exited, pursued by a bear... or an eagle.

---

1. All of that noted, Egypt is also the home of Modern Standard Arabic — the place where it was, in fact, developed. Although the Egyptian dialect is still more distinct from MSA than, say, American English is from the Queen's English, it is not nearly so distinct as "Johnson" mistakenly analogizes — it is nowhere near the Latin/Spanish comparison. Thus, Mubarek's decision to use MSA did not exclude the Egyptian people from his audience in the same way that an address by Hugo Chávez in Latin would exclude the Venezualan populace.

Labels: culture, politics

link to: 11:28 [GMT-6]

Steady-State-Hypothesis Link Sausages

 

Several tasty link sausages leading up to indigestible bites of the State of The Onion link sausage:

• In a shocking — I say shocking — development that discloses the iniquity of Writer's Digest for all to see, WD has announced a "partnership" with dubious, deceptive vanity press Author Solutions to create a "self-publishing solution" for readers of the magazine. If you needed any more proof that the ownership of WD (and, for that matter, its editorial staff) cares not about actually helping its readership, this is it. There are so many conflicts of interest inherent in this little deal that I cannot even begin to unwind them all — and that's before dealing with the particular nature of WD's "partner."

  Perhaps, though, this merely demonstrates two markers for literary scams. This first, and perhaps most obvious (given recent history), is a location within twenty-five miles of Bloomington, Indiana. It's not just Author Solutions (formerly Author House) and Bookman/Jones Harvest/Brien Jones, either; even the purportedly reformed refugees seem to have no clue on actually helping authors. The second, more sarcastically, is the use of the management-speak term "solutions" in relation to anything about publishing... and for this, a quick check of my own files seems to confirm that it's pretty uniformly a marker for — at minimum — services/products that will take an author's money without reliably benefitting the author's craft or income. Thus, if an author notes either of these markers when doing due diligence — you do some background investigation before giving up your money, right? — he/she should run away; there will be plenty of alternatives.

• Being a scientist is as much about attitude and observation as it is training; consider Vladimir Nabokov's contribution to lepidopterology.
• How ironic, in a sense, that so much of Obama's address was devoted to economic and quasieconomic concerns the day before the World Private HegemonicEconomic Summit opens in Davos. And how convenient for the participants to visit their numbered Swiss bank accounts in town while they're there.
• Finally on this platter, the State of The Onion (which would have been much more entertaining than was the actual speech).
  • The President gave a lot of attention to broad-minded efforts to pump up education without noting the main problem with education: the lack of rigor in undergraduate education degrees. Perhaps the first step, then, should be a mandatory demotion of the education "degree" to a minor, and not a major, with a required Latinate/engineering major. After all, it's unlikely that those who have had no rigor in step two of their education will be successful in instilling rigor in step one — and the constant refrain that we're hearing these days is that high-school graduates aren't ready to do anything, but require considerable additional training.

    But then, I'd like to see a lot more National Merit Scholars in the classroom; the few that go into teaching eventually end up in administration, almost universally — and virtually never end up teaching in the area of their undergraduate education, if that area is not education itself. What are we telling our kids about teaching as a career when it's the mediocre students who end up as teachers?

  • It's all well and good to talk about "bipartisanship" in a speech before a partisan institution, but that presupposes that the party labels are themselves meaningful — and at no time since the voting and debate over the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in 1962 through 1964 have the party labels been less predictive of any individual member's views (or amenability to compromise). Just consider the difference between the two Republican Senators from Maine and the most-junior Republican member of the House from Tennessee... and I don't just mean gender, either.
  • Government isn't about being efficient. Government is about being effective. When government is ineffective, it is also inefficient... but trying to "fix" efficiency gets the problem backward. As a specific criticism, it's not the "costliness" of regulations that should be at issue, but whether the regulations result in the behavior change they are supposed to cause. If the regulations don't result in that change, there is nothing that can be done to make them "efficient" — just laying off the staff that is supposed to enforce them doesn't do anything. In political science, this is the backward mapping problem (PDF); military officers know it as the principle don't give an order that you know will not be obeyed.
  • Obama missed a major opportunity to point out a side benefit of health-care reform: Over time, it will by itself operate as malpractice reform, as those who believe they were harmed by medical malpractice will no longer need a big payday just to pay for continuing medical care. Instead, he bowed to the pressure of those who would use outliers to shape policy... and, for that matter, to those who continue to reject national regulation of lawyers.
  • Anybody who doesn't view Obama as a centrist after actually reading/listening to the speech defines anyone to their own left as a commie/socialist liberal — in other words, rejects the celebration of dissent embedded in the Constitution... or is a member of the Mad Tea Party, which is roughly the same thing but even more intellectually dishonest.

Labels: culture, law practice, politics, publishing, science

link to: 12:24 [GMT-6]

First Essay Assignments of the Semester

 

Since the spring semester (or winter quarter, for some of you; and I suppose summer quarter for those in the southern hemisphere) is in full operation now, I propose the following three essay assignments based on link sausages.

• Here's a fascinating, three-way exercise in comparison-and-contrast arguments: Should we decategorize "serious music" as a way of making it more popular, or should we acknowledge that "literary fiction" is just another artifical publishing category? And what do we do about the nerds and geeks in the first place? And all of this as the finalists for the National Book Critics' Circle awards are announced, including the obligatory award to one of their own...
• Just how many wrongs does it take to make a right? Well, consider Harper's Magazine's unionization, followed by layoffs planned for two editors... one of whom was an organizer of the unionization. Now throw in that the magazine is controlled by a nonprofit foundation, but actually directed by a "benefactor." Then compare to (and contrast with) the preceding item...
• Professor Crawford provides some useful (and unjustly neglected) insights into the FCC's decision on the Comcast/NBCU merger. The one criticism that I would make is that the entire argument presumes that the characteristics of a monopolist are functionally, mathematically, and effectively identical to those of a monopsonist... and it's trivial to demonstrate (even using the original research by Hirschfeld et al.) that they're not. It's quite disturbing to me that the FCC's decision never makes the distinction, and spends a total of two pages (!) discussing issues that are unique to the monopsony aspects of the transaction.

  As a quick reminder (and vast oversimplification), a monopolist is a seller; a monopsonist is a buyer. In this instance, there has been grossly inadequate attention paid to the restriction on supply, and lower prices paid to suppliers, that will result from restricting the number of independent markets for things like freelance TV scripts (to name only the most obvious aspect). Although the story of Keith Olbermann's departure from MSNBC seems incredibly complicated and probably not an immediate bit of fallout, his replacement (Lawrence O'Donnell) is a considerable move to the center from a center-left perspective; and it will be interesting to see if Rachel Maddow comes under pressure to tone things down so as to keep Fox News happy.

Labels: arts, culture, mass media, politics, publishing

link to: 16:11 [GMT-6]

Schadenfreude Pie

 

No link sausages today. Instead, I'm serving up slices of schadenfreude pie.

I'll start out with the settlement of a malicious prosecution lawsuit... against the law firm, to the tune of $25 million. This pleases me on both a general and a personal level. On the general level, it's pleasant because a frivolous lawsuit got slapped down... and it was the major corporate/pseudocharitable "foundation" that filed that lawsuit. Not all frivolous lawsuits are filed by solo-practitioner ambulance-chasers seeking a big payday for a member of the Great Unwashed from a well-insured corporate defendant! And, as a bonus, it was a strike against a frivolous celebrity claim. More personally (but still generally), the law firm in question has long made the mistake of thinking that its transactional skill translates well to litigation, and has too frequently (in my limited experience with the firm) done a poor job of looking at context before filing its pleadings and motions. Admittedly, some of this perspective is a result of past direct experience; some, however, is more objective, in that I reached that conclusion in examining lawsuits in which I was not involved. The darkest, bitterest, tastiest forkful of pie, though, results from the particular MPP partner involved, as my unsatisfactory dealings with him in the past demonstrated some confusion between what law and custom actually are, on the one hand, and what they would be if his client(s)' interests were/are determinative. It's not an uncommon problem with litigators; I'll nibble this slice of pie with that in mind.

Next up, the UK Prime Minister's communications director resigned under pressure from a wiretapping scandal that occurred when he was the editor at News of the World. No, not the US's supermarket-checkout-line "companion" to the National Enquirer — the NewsCorp tabloid in the UK, and long among the worst of them. (Trying to determine which UK tabloid is "worst" at any one moment is like choosing the form of one's own execution: No matter which one seems least inhumane, the result is that one is dead.) My schadenfreude for this one extends to both the Conservative Party — which objected vociferously during last year's election to increased post-9/11 surveillance activity by the Labour government as being inconsistent with civil rights — and to NewsCorp for getting caught trying to simultaneously be "media" and "spy agency" (again).

But I'm not taking Scalzi's advice: I'm going for a third slice of pie. During an oral argument earlier this week in the Supreme Court, it rapidly became apparent that AT&T's position that data it discloses to regulators is inherently not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests due to the corporation's personal privacy at best grossly overstates the issue... and more probably reflects a "right" that corporations — unlike "natural persons" — either do not have at all or have in only an extremely limited sense (such as retaining privacy control over such data that also implicates a "natural person"'s privacy interests). My schadenfreude here springs from three aspects. First, of course, it was AT&T — one of the biggest supporters of and cooperators with increased warrantless wiretapping after 9/11; privacy for me, and not for thee, eh? Second, this distinction undercuts much of Justice Kennedy's reasoning in Citizens United (the case that essentially allows unlimited corporate financing in elections, continuing the Court's indefensible "money is speech" meme from Buckley v. Valeo). Our Constitution — particularly through the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments — does not allow "second-class citizens." However, the logical extension of rejecting a personal privacy right for corporations (and it's not a very significant reach) is that Frankenstein's monster — the corporation — does not have every right and privilege and immunity accorded "natural persons," which in turn calls into question the assumed conclusion in Justice Kennedy's Citizens United opinion... and the application of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to corporations. (And the less said about an overly literal treatment of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition on ownership of persons, the better. Or maybe not.) Third, it was amusing to see an advocate forced to partially retract a position taken in his brief because it was, in the end, counterfactual.

Just desserts all around, served with cardamom-laced Turkish coffee.

Labels: civil rights, intellectual property, jurisprudence, law practice, mass media, politics

link to: 10:19 [GMT-6]

Objects in the Monitor Are Closer Than They Appear

 

The local news stations are basically falling all over themselves proclaiming winter weather and a snowpocalypse. Yeah, I'm impressed.

• There has been a lot of musing about midlist writers going on on the 'net lately, but I think this cartoon nails it... from the perspective of the corporate commercial publisher, anyway:

  

• What's "as fashion fickle as an emo kid's dress sense"? Book covers — especially in category fiction (and not just, as the linked article implies, speculative fiction)! A large part of the problem — I'd argue the determinative part of the problem — is the failure to define the audience for the cover. Certainly in this day of chain-store category managers who seldom set foot in their own stores (let alone actually buy books for themselves), with their white middle-class Upper-West-Side prejudgment of what will sell that bears no resemblance to what actually attracts real book buyers, none of this should be too surprising. After all, the thought process of too many art directors at commercial publishers — such as it is — is to appeal to the "kewl kids" like themselves (since said art directors, too, are almost uniformly white middle-class Upper-West-Siders... of the same gender and sexual orientation as the chain category managers in the respective categories). And if you're offended that this seems dismissive of your particular efforts, you might want to ask yourself why it seems to fit.
• An interesting take on cultural change in Iran/Persia from a California-based academic raises some interesting points, but ultimately misses the mark with its assumption that "current and future conflicts will follow the path of past conflicts" — that is, this article is fighting the last war. That's far from unusual; what is a bit more unusual is the proclamation that the past does not just guide, but determines, the outcome.

  On the other hand, applying that reasoning to the Governor of Alabama's bigotry is at least amusing... "misstep" my ass; I've been to Montgomery.

• A list of the fifty most loathesome Americans of 2010 is rather unusual: Although it doesn't include a few leading candidates, it doesn't contain anyone who doesn't really belong there. Well, except the couple of them who aren't truly "Americans," but are merely adult transplants, like Mel Gibson; and a couple of politicians who weren't "loathesome" so much as "disappointments." In any event, a fun read bearing some serious thought.

  And, sadly, these are precisely the loathesome characters who would casually say "nigger", or "faggot", or "kike", or "raghead", or "spic", or "intellectual", or ... well, you get the idea. I guess that means we shouldn't write about them any more, or about the loathesome aspects of society that lead to using words as deprecation.

Labels: arts, censorship, culture, politics, publishing

link to: 10:07 [GMT-6]

First Day of Spring (Semester) Link Sausages

 

More minor Life and health stuff for the past few days (which never seems minor while going through it), plus the holiday yesterday (one of the few I respect), so this isn't an especially large platter of link sausages. Nonetheless:

• One dictator out... and one returns. To put it another way, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I can't see too many winners here.
• Tony Scott, the NYT film critic, ponders whether critics have a chance of influencing public taste... or should. Although he makes some salient points — particularly in the penultimate paragraph:

  There is a cultural elite, in America, which tries its utmost to manipulate the habits and tastes of consumers. It consists of the corporations who sell nearly everything with the possible exception of classical music and conceptual arts, and while its methods include some of the publicity-driven hype that finds its way into newspapers, magazines and other traditional media, its main tool is not criticism but marketing.

  (emphasis in original) he ultimately misses the point of criticism, theory, and virtually all other conversation about individual works of art (in any medium). Art is, at its core, about communication; and what criticism, theory, and the rest of the conversation ultimately do is provide feedback to the artist(s). It's often unwelcome feedback; but, more importantly, observing the feedback offered to Artist A for Work A' helps Artist B, in the throes of creating Work B', work in the negative spaces of Work B' (cutting away the parts of the slab of rock that don't look like the intended sculpture). In that sense, criticism and theory are an artist's means of time travel and a way of avoiding obvious mistakes made by others.

• Or, of course, you could just be Jeff Koons and use every aspect of the arts — including copyright law — as a tool for your own enrichment. Remember, the economic incentives built into copyright law are there to advance progress in the useful arts and sciences. They are incentives, not goals... which, in a roundabout way, is part of Mr Scott's point in the preceding item.
• First it's a bowdlerized Huck Finn (and remember, the new president is a n!). Now it's a classic Dire Straits song. Guys, there's a difference between use of "offensive words" in direct discourse and by less-than-admirable/self-aware/postmodernhipster characters in works of fiction. But don't tell antiintellectuals like Bruce Springsteen and John Mellencamp (and, for that matter, Sarah Palin) and other celebrants of the blue-collar bottom third of the public high school class as the only Real Americans.

Labels: arts, censorship, copyright, culture, intellectual property, life, politics

link to: 15:06 [GMT-6]

Bleaaagh

 

Still somewhat under the weather, but that affects only the quantity of sarcasm and snark on offer... not the amplitude.

• Are historians AWOL from contemporary political debates because academic standards require disengagement from the present or because the marked lack of civility in current public discourse is anathema to the academic mindset?¹ There's probably some truth to both points of view... but there's also a third factor that is probably even more important: Decisionmakers do not, themselves, have the basic historical understanding to evaluate the arguments made by historians in any fashion other than ideologically. Far too many business and marketing and advertising majors (who pretty universally do not have anything resembling a liberal education) are populating our law schools and our political staffs, and the backlash against "intellectuals" begun following the failure of the "best and brightest" (who weren't, but that argument is for another time) to manage the Vietnam conflict successfully has just made things worse.

  To put it another way, marketing/advertising wants black and white, and so do politicians in a two-party "us and them" system. Historians specialize in grey. It should not surprise anyone that the two populations don't communicate too well.

• The only trustworthy feline on the 'net begins a report on the Global Forum on IP. Authors and those who care about literature should read the discussion about "The Internet and Copyright – Problem Solved?" (about two screens down).

---

1. Aside from faculty meetings, that is, where incivil discourse is not just encouraged, but required. Remember: Academic feuds are so vicious because the stakes are so low. What that says, by implication, about the stakes in our current political "debate," given how vicious it has become...

Labels: copyright, culture, intellectual property, internet, life, politics

link to: 16:57 [GMT-6]

Reality Is Just a Crutch

 

... for those who can't handle politics. Not much else for today, due to Life and the flu and such. But...

I suppose it's time for a quiz. Which of these three ridiculous speeches demonstrates the least historical ignorance and disjuncture from reality:

• The former part-time Governor of Alaska's claim that attacks on extreme rhetoric from what she claims is the left (and in America, probably passes for it... but is really more centrist than anything else) are intended to repress dissent and are nothing more than "blood libel" against the Mad Tea Party
• Future Senator Blutarski tries to motivate the disspirited troops
• Chancellor Adenoid Hynkel inspires the Ptomanian public

Bluto is a more-inspiring leader for a more-worthwhile cause... and at least he tried to refer to history. Chancellor Hynkel's speech is just too much for someone who actually speaks the underlying language (although it might be that I misunderstood the former part-time governor because I'm not sufficiently fluent in Pseudoruralignoramish, even after years of living in Oklahoma, Suffolk, and East Central Redneckistan).

Labels: culture, life, politics

link to: 10:48 [GMT-6]

Leftovers

 

Still bogged down by Life... but that doesn't prevent me from making link sausages out of the leftovers!

• Sarah Weinman discusses the darker side of publishers and new authors, and — as dark as her portrait is — nonetheless finds some grounds for something resembling optimism.
• Robert McCrum once again demonstrates that he's unable to distinguish between the baby and the bathwater with yet another sub rosa approval of a diatribe against publishing practices — this time copyright as a whole — based on exceptions. This is, unfortunately, the default practice for the entire argument (and bears a disturbing resemblance to the background of this weekend's violence in Arizona): If any part of copyright is less than optimal for any work, the entire regime must be thrown out, in some sort of Maoist "permanent revolution." On the other hand, if one looks closely at the problems that McCrum describes (and that Boyle focuses on in his academic work), one will find that almost without exception the problems arise from transferred copyrights that are no longer under the control of the natural persons who actually did the creative work... which implicates economics, finance, and the dubious concept of unquestioned inheritance more than it does copyright itself (or, for that matter, any conceivable replacement).
• There's a fascinating article in the NYT that exposes an aspect of cultural imperialism that echoes Sarah Weinman's piece (and, for that matter, McCrum's): Who are the greatist composers of music? Note, though, the not-so-hidden assumption that this means Western European orchestral music in the "classical" tradition (despite the lip service paid to alternatives). There's no place for "folk" traditions, even though several of those composers (Chopin being the most obvious) based the core of their oeuvres on recasting folk music into the "classical" mold. Similarly, there's little place for solo instruments, although at least to my taste some of the greatest works of even these composers — with the possible exception, again, of Chopin, who at least drafted everything for piano — was for solo instruments and not overblown orchestral works for the upper classes. Most egregiously, there's no place for words or voice: Not one of these candidates was his/her own librettist for even the secondary and tertiary vocal works he composed. This is perhaps most obvious with Mozart's butchery of speech rhythms in Le nozze de Figaro and Don Juan, which get completely ignored by critics.

  Instead, this article is largely a mess... not so much because of its overt focus on "classical" composers as because it refuses to look outside the canon. At least the author isn't on a soapbox for Glück or some "unjustly neglected" other personal favorite!

* * *

Here's my unsolicited reaction to the various speculation and accusations of ill-will surrounding the Arizona shootings, remembering that radio and TV presentations are also other forms of "writing":

Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:

(i) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc....

(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement....

(iii) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

(iv) Political purpose — using the word "political" in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples' idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time. By nature — taking your "nature" to be the state you have attained when you are first adult — I am a person in whom the first three motives would outweigh the fourth. In a peaceful age I might have written ornate or merely descriptive books, and might have remained almost unaware of my political loyalties. As it is I have been forced into becoming a sort of pamphleteer.

George Orwell, "Why I Write" (emphasis and ellipses added).

The greatest political writer of the twentieth century came to overtly political writing under the pressure of circumstances. The key point, though, is that Mr Blair did so consciously, preventing his prose from ever descending to the depths one finds on AM talk radio. He constantly examined his own motives and methods (with inconsistent success, albeit vastly greater than virtually any of his — or our — contemporaries). There's more than one lesson here...

Labels: arts, copyright, culture, life, politics, publishing

link to: 15:45 [GMT-6]

Killian Bezos Is Lying to You

 

After still more Life, I was less than amused to find the following e-mail in my inbox last night.

Greetings from the Amazon Associates Program:

We regret to inform you that the Illinois state legislature has passed an unconstitutional tax collection scheme that, if signed by Governor Quinn, would leave Amazon.com little choice but to end its relationships with Illinois-based Associates. You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are a resident of Illinois. If our records are incorrect, you can manage the details of your Associates account [link].

Please note that this not an immediate termination notice and you are still a valued participant in the Amazon Associates Program. But if the governor signs this bill, we will need to terminate the participation of all Illinois residents in the Associates Program. After that point, we will no longer pay any advertising fees for sales referred to amazon.com, endless.com and smallparts.com nor will we accept new applications for the Associates Program from Illinois residents.

The unfortunate consequences of this legislation on Illinois residents like you were explained to the legislature, including Senate and House leadership, as well as to the governor's staff.

Over a dozen other states have considered essentially identical legislation but have rejected these proposals largely because of the adverse impact on their states' residents.

Governor Quinn's office may be reached here [link].

We thank you for being part of the Amazon Associates Program, and wish you continued success in the future.

Sincerely,

Amazon.com

Wow, that sure sounds scary, doesn't it? Too bad it's almost entirely a lie. In no particular order:

• Notice that this never identifies the bill in question? Well, a little research on my part determined that it's Illinois House Bill 3659, Senate Floor Amendment 3, which has been passed and is on the Governor's desk for signature. This amendment would force Amazon to collect use (sales) taxes for Illinois-based "affiliate sellers" — and, most significantly, would not impose a new tax, but would merely require collection of an existing one via the payment system.

  This is a stupid policy. It is being put forth as an alleged "level the playing field" provision by brick-and-mortar retailers, who resent having to collect sales tax in Illinois while out-of-state 'net-based retailers don't. (We'll leave aside that the out-of-state retailers must (1) pay taxes where they're located, and (2) don't get the benefit of a lot of the services for which Illinois sales taxes are — at least purportedly, and at least by law — dedicated, such as police protection, fire protection, and our charming local schools.) Further, it is being put forth as a "revenue-enhancer" in a state that has a worse budget crisis than does California... meaning, in turn, that it's at best a bandaid being applied to a gushing femoral artery.

  However, not every stupid policy is "unconstitutional." Without explanation of any kind — and, in particular, without reference to the language of the statute, which does pass constitutional muster under Quill¹ — this communication just says "unconstitutional." It's not even a close call.

• The tax collection scheme would definitely not "leave Amazon.com little choice but to end its relationship with Illinois-based Associates." Amazon already collects sales taxes in other jurisdictions, in particular in Washington State (its corporate home). Many other 'net-based retailers already collect Illinois sales taxes, such as one of my favorite computer hardware vendors. Nothing in the statute would make anything that Amazon does unlawful; it would only require Amazon to do some things it doesn't want to do, and it won't "need to terminate the participation of all Illinois residents in the Associates Program" if Governor Quinn passes the bill.
• The real prize, though, is that assertion that over a dozen other states have rejected "essentially identical legislation but have rejected these proposals largely because of the adverse impact on their states' residents." Bullshit. The rejections in question arose from business/chamber-of-commerce/antitax ideological opposition during election cycles, lobbying, and behind-the-scenes logrolling and skullduggery. None of the states in which this legislation actually came to a floor vote had more than token rationalizations entered in their legislative records concerning any purported adverse effect on the states' residents.

If I needed any further warrant for my opinion that Jeff Bezos and his staff either aren't paying attention to whatever competent legal advice that they are offered,² or are not getting it in the first place (and, based on other recent bullshit from the Big Brazilian River, may not even be asking for it at all), this letter is more than adequate. Even though I'm against sales taxes on principle — they're regressive, inefficient, distortive, and insufficient — I know better than to call something that's administratively inconvenient (and not even that costly to administer) "unconstitutional" just because I don't want to comply with it.

---

1. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). In fact, the provisions of proposed § 1.1 of the amendment are substantially less burdensome and overreaching than were the statutes at issue in Quill, particularly given the automated system that Amazon already has in place for calculating Washington State sales taxes...
2. I have had extensive dealings, and attempts to deal, with the in-house legal staff at Amazon. As a result of that frustration, I have long held, and continue to hold, in-house counsel in less than minimal professional regard. Be that as it may be, one thing that is quite clear is that nobody in-house qualifies as a constitutional scholar...

Labels: internet, jurisprudence, politics, publishing

link to: 12:05 [GMT-6]

Welcome to 2011

 

The cause of the delay in starting the year was a combination of a daylong 'net connection dropout, the need to reflect on the ingredients of some of these sausages, and TMI about Life. But it has resulted in a number of link sausages that are still inside their sell-by dates. Honest. Ignore that replacement label, ok?

• Here's another example of kids contributing to scientific progress: A ten-year-old discovers a supernova. It's the attitude and opportunity, guys.
• In a sign that Judge Chin may nonetheless decide the Google Book Search settlement-class motion himself, he issued a ruling on 29 December 2010 in a nasty case involving one of my favorite groups of bacterial parasites: Debt collectors. In Sykes v. Mel Harris Assocs., No. 2009–08486 (S.D.N.Y. 29 Dec 2010) (HTML requiring free registration), Judge Chin denied most of the various defendants' motions to dismiss against a "sewer service" scheme, in which the debt collector bought just the allegation of debt (and not the proof of validity); a law firm robofiled lawsuits, anticipating obtaining default judgments; and a process-server firm did not actually serve the complaints, but nonethless provided affidavits that it had done so. So the complaint alleges, anyway, and Judge Chin ruled that this is sufficient to proceed to discovery... noting similarities (without citation) to one of my old Chicago cases with his recognition that one employee was signing "personal knowledge" affidavits at the rate of once every three minutes.

  What bothers me the most about this is that the bar authorities aren't going to do anything, even if a judgment eventually issues against the law firm involved. Instead, they're going to continue focussing their efforts on keeping out-of-state lawyers from providing real competition in specialist matters.

  The real indication that Judge Chin may, just perhaps, still be writing his opinion in the GBS mess is that he signed the opinion in Sykes as "Circuit Judge"... and that there has been no formal redesignation of the GBS mess to another judge as of yet, over eight months after Judge Chin was confirmed to the Second Circuit.

• The Economist tries to predict the course of 2011. Things start off with relying on Ariana Huffington's wisdom and rapidly go downhill from there... if that's possible. It's nonetheless quite amusing... but I have a really, really sick sense of humor.
• The fabulous Sarah Weinman discusses some of the challenges of being a bookworm.

  So, to boil all this rambling down to a single goal, it’s that I have a great desire to trim the fat and focus as much as possible on the exceptional. Disappointing or bad books are fine every now and then to remind me why exceptional books are, in fact, exceptional, but mediocre books? I have no use for the likes of you and never will.

  The problem, as always, is to determine which parts of one's "to be read" list are the mediocre ones... and for my subspecies of bookworm, which mediocre ones are nonetheless required reading, such as current category fiction bestsellers.

• The 1709 Blog discusses Public Domain Day for 2010 expirations.
• Professor Arend points out a hole in education: Selective innumeracy in foreign policy. This isn't news to me; then, my undergraduate institution required completion of at least one semester of calculus for graduation, so even the poets had some exposure to numerical methods. In law school, however, it was shocking how innumerate many of my classmates (even accountants!) really were... and the less said about the antiintellectualism and antinumeric tendencies of the Reagan and Bush I administrations' hiring policies, the better.

Labels: copyright, culture, internet, life, politics, publishing, science