I moved two months ago and one month ago I sent in a new voter registration form to update my address in Washington, DC.

For the past month, on the DC Board of Elections web site, when I searched for my "voter registration status" I got the following message:Registered Voter
PENDING APPROVAL PER RECEIPT OF SIGNED APPLICATIONOf course, the signed application is what I sent in a month ago.  I called on Friday to see if perhaps the online database just wasn't updated.  The woman told me it was, but they'd gotten a ton of registrations and would be processing them through the weekend.  "Don't worry," she said, "but call back on Monday to make sure."

Today, Monday, is the voter registration deadline for DC.  I just called.  This time, I got a busy signal at the Board of Elections.

Our friends at the Brennan Center put it succinctly in a piece on The Hill's blog today:Wall Street routinely doles out large campaign contributions to members of Congress. In the current election cycle, the financial services sector (which includes insurance and real sector), contributed more money to candidates for Congress, the presidency and political parties than did any other sector, totaling $339.6 million from 2007 through today. Both chambers' banking committees also benefit handsomely. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, PACs and employees of the securities and investment industry are the second largest source of cash for members of the Senate Banking committee. During the 2008 election cycle, these contributors raised $11.7 million for the 21 members of that Committee. Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) received about $4.3 million since 2003, or half of all contributions to his campaign coffers.

Does campaign cash influence legislation and regulation? When Congress last debated regulation (or rather, de-regulation) of the financial industry in 1999, a study by the Center for Responsive Politics showed that members of Congress who supported the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act received twice as much money from commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies as those who opposed the measure. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was the product of many years of lobbying by the financial industry and allowed for the loosening of bank regulations that had been in place since the Great Depression.Gutting regulations that had been in place since the Great Depression, leading to a financial crisis that has us moving closer to a repeat of the Great Depression, all because of a pesky little privately-funded campaign system in which Wall Street used its financial might to keep Congress quiet.

When public attention shifts beyond the bailout to the longer term concern of our economy -- and who makes the decisions and regulations going forward -- we need to make sure we fix our political system so it's not a money game that continues to reward the wealthiest interests at the expense of the rest of us.  Here's how:Just last week, the Fair Elections Now Act, which would establish a system of voluntary public financing for Congressional elections, was introduced with bi-partisan support in the House. Last year, Senators Durbin (D-Ill.) and Specter (R-Pa.) introduced the Senate version of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a voluntary public financing system for Senate candidates. With the introduction of its House counterpart this week by Representatives Larson (D-Conn.) and Jones (R-N.C.) (both from Clean Elections states), lawmakers are presented with a bipartisan, bicameral effort to undertake serious and lasting structural reform. Public financing would eliminate the perils of special interest cash by establishing strict spending limits, enabling small donors and greatly increasing the power of ordinary voters to hold Congress accountable.

Joe Torres at Free Press posted a blog yesterday titled "Hate Speech Rises in the Media" which gives some examples of the increase of hate speech in the mainstream media.

ANY hate speech is more than our society should have, but it's especially alarming when it is increasing. So where are the voices to counter the hate speech? Silenced. Not by force. Not by intimidation. But by the media ownership structure.

People of color who are being attacked by talking heads in the media have little capacity to respond or frame the message themselves because they can't get into the media market.

On September 25th Common Cause President Bob Edgar, Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., CC advisor Joseph Montville and I attended a dinner hosted by the United Nations Office of the World Council of Churches and other religions groups that featured Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Our involvement was a part of our upcoming public diplomacy visit to Iran to take place later this fall.  The theme of the event was, "Has not one God created us?," and the guest list included representatives from more than 20 world religions as well as other prominent figures such as UN General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockman and former Norwegian Prime Minister, Rev. Kjell Bondevik.

The event was held at the Grand Hyatt in Manhattan and was not without the controversy one might expect from a visit from the current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Fewer than 100 protestors outside the Hyatt railed against Ahmadinejad and tried to antagonize those of us who were interested in having a dialogue with him (although some press reports suggested the turnout was much higher it wasn't a very big crowd).  The protests were sponsored by the Zionist Organization of America, Concerned Women for America, Arabs for Israel, American Maronite Union among others.  The groups were angry for what they believed was a feting of Ahmadinejad instead of the dialogue that it was.

The sky is falling on Wall Street and now more than ever we need all the information we can detailing the possible impacts for Americans. What are the news stories about the financial bailout telling you? Do we know any real details about proposed legislation? How many and what kinds of experts have been asked about these details? Where are the headlines with possible outcomes for Colorado? All I can find are articles mentioning the bailout, only to have the rest of the article about horse race campaign issues.

We see the same headlines in every newspaper in every town. Where are the guts of the stories?

We need a diverse marketplace of ideas in times like these, not superficial headlines that are sent down to all the local newspapers and TV stations from just a few corporate owners. Look at what several Colorado newspapers are running and notice that all but one are written by the Associated Press, instead of local journalists.

The Denver Post Bailout defeated in House; stocks plunge (Associated Press)
The Rocky Mountain News Stunning defeat in House for economic bailout; stock plunge a record (Associated Press)
Durango Herald Durango businesses feel the crunch (local story)
The Pueblo Chieftain DENIED! - House defeats $700B financial markets bailout (Associated Press)
Daily Camera Stunning defeat for economy bailout; stocks plunge (Associated Press)
The Coloradoan House rejects bailout plan (Associated Press)

Watch it live online!

Today and tomorrow St. John's University School of Law in NYC is hosting a symposium titled MAKING HISTORY: Race, Gender and the Media in the 2008 Elections.

This symposium will investigate the subject of race, gender and the media in the 2008 elections. Many democracies, such as the United Kingdom, Argentina, India, Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Liberia and other countries have or have had women heads of state, and other countries, like Peru and Bolivia, have elected presidents who are members of racial minority groups. However, the United States has never elected a woman or a person of color as president and has traditionally discriminated against both women and minority voters and candidates. In 2008, we stand poised  to witness the historic event of a black male or a white woman heading the presidential ballot on behalf of a major political party.

WATCH LIVE
All sessions of the MAKING HISTORY Symposia will be broadcast live via the St. John's University Web site. Viewers are also encouraged to submit questions to panelists for any session.

The LA Times covers the story behind the bailout story today: how the major Wall Street financial institutions spent over $1 billion (that's billion with a 'b') on Washington lobbying and campaign contributions in just the last six years, which not only pushed Congress to treat them with kid gloves--i.e. lax regulation, friendly policies--but is also allowing them to continue pushing for their own best interests in the massive bailout package.

The subheadline says it all: Firms have given lavishly to both parties in Congress. That could help them get the language they want in the bill - as well as block provisions such as homeowner assistance.

That's our political system, rife with corrupting big money, soldiering on to favor the wealthy and powerful industries even in the most dire circumstances.  There's no better example of why public financing of campaigns would go a long way towards putting the power back into the hands of the people and allow lawmakers to serve the public interest, not the financial services industry's interest.

Could this happen again?  Well, we had the S&L crisis twenty years ago, but apparently that lesson wasn't enough to overcome the campaign cash of Wall Street.  Either we change the way we finance our elections in this country or... well, you know the old saying, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

UPDATE (Wednesday): And for a further analysis, see our report out today, "Ask Yourself Why... They Didn't See This Coming."

After more than a year of wishin' and hopin' and plannin' and dreamin'...at long last both houses of Congress have passed the same version of H.R. 928, the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. Final passage came per unanimous votes in the Senate on Wednesday the 23rd, and in the House on Saturday the 27th.

The bill began life as legislation originally drafted by Rep. Jim Cooper, (D-TN), but twisted through numerous permutations on its way to passage. Although one version passed the House last October by a vote of 404-11, it contained several provisions that Republicans in the Senate as well as the White House just could not swallow, including a seven-year term limit for IGs and a strict provision that IGs could only be dismissed for good cause. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) was instrumental in keeping the bill alive and negotiating the necessary changes, along with Sens. Lieberman (I-CT), Collins (R-ME) and Kyl (R-AZ) on the Senate side, and Reps. Henry Waxman, (D-CA) and Cooper (D-TN) on the House side. Lieberman and Waxman chair the relevant committees.

But even though this final version has been reluctantly agreed to by the administration, we are told that we should expect one of the President's inimitable "signing statements," whereby he signs a piece of legislation while simultaneously stating his disagreement and/or intent to ignore certain provisions contained therein. We understand that the signing statement for this bill will continue to object to provisions requiring more transparency in IG budgets--something that OMB has in the past complained would trample unconstitutionally on the President's executive powers.

Another interesting fillip on final passage of the IG bill concerns a subject that POGO has been pushing since at least July 2007: the need for all IGs, but particularly the OIG at the Defense Department, to have access to their own dedicated and independent legal counsel. The problem mostly pertains to smaller IG offices, but we had been stunned to learn that ever since the creation of the Pentagon's IG shop, the Inspector General's counsel had always been beholden in some respect to the Office of General Counsel of the Department. In other words, the Secretary's lawyer, the person whose job it is to make the department look good--not necessarily to do right--has been the ultimate boss of the IG's lawyer. We found that inherent conflict unsupportable in any agency, but particularly one in which so many billions of the taxpayers' money are susceptible to fraud and other misconduct.

While Congressional staffers inserted special language into the defense authorization bill (Sec. 907) to make sure that DOD's IG has independent legal advice, Section 6 of the IG bill made sure that every IG will "obtain legal advice from a counsel either reporting directly to the Inspector General or another Inspector General." Notwithstanding the passage of these two legislative provisions, we learn today that last Tuesday, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, by purest coincidence, ordered that the IG's Office of General Counsel will no longer be "under the authority, direction and control of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense." It's a bit amusing that this situation had existed for twenty years but suddenly had to be changed, "effective immediately," the day before the Senate approved final passage of the IG bill and four days before the House did so. Or maybe it was the kinda stubborn thing that just took two pieces of legislation plus one executive order to change...whatever, we're glad.

POGO has blogged elsewhere about important provisions of the defense authorization bill, but here are the most important provisions of the IG Reform Act in addition to the counsel issue:

• The President must notify both houses of Congress of his reasons at least 30 days in advance before removing or transferring an IG.

• The pay of all IGs is raised to be in line with other senior agency officials; however, IGs will henceforth be forbidden to receive any cash bonuses or other awards.

• The establishment of the Council of IGs on Integrity and Efficiency. This provision combines and makes statutory the two existing councils previously set up by executive order to coordinate the activities of IGs. And unlike the existing councils, the new one will be chaired by an IG elected by his or her peers, although a senior OMB official will retain some semblance of control as the "executive chair." The new council's mission is to "address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual" agencies and to increase the professionalism and effectiveness of IG personnel with training academies for auditors and investigators. Importantly, a funding stream is identified to enable the Council to perform its

• The Council on IGs will submit a slate of qualified candidates to the President or agency head when an IG vacancy

• Within the IG Council, the establishment of an Integrity Committee to handle allegations of wrongdoing aimed at IGs or their top staff members.

• More budget transparency is achieved by the requirement that the President's budget submission to Congress include a separate statement of the IG's budget request, along with the amount requested by the President for funding of the IG's office, along with an amount for IG training and a separate amount for support of the Council of IGs. Furthermore, if an IG concludes that the President's budget request is inadequate to support the needs of his office, he may include such comments in the package that goes to Capitol Hill.

• IGs' subpoena power is specifically expanded to include access to electronic and tangible items, and it's made clear that all IGs may recover funds defrauded from their agencies under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act. Similarly, all IGs would now have clear law enforcement authority.

• The bill further requires a "direct link" on the website of every agency to its IG's webpage. The link must be "obvious and facilitate accessibility" to the IG's site. All public IG reports must be posted within three days of release and must be "searchable and downloadable." There must also be a clear link for individuals to report fraud, waste, and abuse anonymously.

I remark briefly on the commentary “how smart is Palin,” noting her mispronunciation of “verbiage” and “pundit.” I’d suggest that observers be wary of assessing qualifications based on this kind of thing. Example: one very well-educated person I know, whose IQ is high enough to qualify enough for Mensa, mispronounces several words because he was socially isolated for his formative years and formed the habit of saying them before he had the chance to hear others pronounce them correctly. I don’t mean he was shut in a closet, which wouldn’t be relevant as Palin clearly hasn’t been, but just that he lived in a rural area where most of his peers were relatively uneducated.

In any case, it is curious that the anxious analysis of Palin, stemming from the fact that she is relatively unknown, seems to turn on characteristics of social class rather than on information about her decision-making as an executive. What significant choices about things like taxes, education policy, resources, and so on was she faced with as governor? What did she do in those situations? Why? What were the alternatives? Many voters probably do elect candidates based on how someone talks or looks, but mightn’t it be nice for a change for the talking classes to assess a candidate on policy? Would she make a better political candidate if some professor had had a couple months to drill her on vocabulary and delivery, like the hapless flower seller Eliza whats-her-name?

A second curiousity is the very common assumption that IQ is relevant to the ability to be a decent President. I’ll have to explain what I mean by this at some length, as I’m aware this is heresy of sorts for intelligentsia. There seems to be some sort of hankering after rule by some of Plato’s philosopher-kings, natural or otherwise.

I have met a good many intelligent, educated people who would make spectacularly bad Presidents. An alarming number of them in fact make quite bad whatever it is that they are supposed to be, professors, for example, or parents. Some have marked neuroses–they are paranoid, dishonest, depressive, addicted, passive-aggressive, and so on. A good number are too immature or insecure to admit or identify other’s strong points as complements to their own weaknesses, or admit their own errors. Others can’t shut up to listen to someone else talk for two minutes together, and if they do happen to fall silent are busy thinking up what they are going to say next, rather than actually taking in new information. Then there are others who lack the moral courage to actually follow a line of reasoning or argument, if it would mean the disapproval of their peers or, worse, their students. Others are so accustomed to being praised for the cleverness and quickness of their reasoning that they do not stop to check the facts upon which that reasoning is based. A significant number are hide-bound-incapable of exercising their judgment to make an exception to a general rule, even when that means disaster.

Scholars whose work makes a real contribution (Bob Summers of Cornell is one example known to me; Richard Epstein is another) are as a general rule smart, but cleverness is *not* the most marked characteristic of their personalities. One characteristic is boundless curiousity that drives them to question their own views as well as others in order to get to the bottom of things, not minding that they might discover themselves to be wrong; their views as a result may shift over the course of a lifetime. Ego and impressing others is less important to them than knowing the answer. Another characteristic is an appetite for facts–historical, scientific, economic, and so on. Another is a sort of in-grained disinterest in attacking straw men–their response to a poorly worded challenge is not to take the opportunity to mock the challenger, it would be to rephrase the challenge cogently, giving the challenger the benefit of the doubt, and then to respond to that. I could go on, but I won’t. The point is just that even in an area where intelligence supposedly matters so much, academics, it isn’t everything and indeed all too often turns out to be not much of anything, with the brilliant head of this or that class whipping off an article or two, or dozens, that are frankly unreadable and that twenty years from now will be entirely forgotten.

Leadership, likewise, seems linked to qualities other than intelligence. One is confidence and maturity. Another is the ability to attract, tolerate, and mediate among advisors of differing opinions–including some dissenters and eccentrics. Being surrounded by yes-men or opportunists, consistently placing loyalty above ability, is a disaster for a leader. This has, however, little to do with intelligence. Personal charisma does play a role, associated with the ability of a leader to empathize with individuals or to appear to–a noted Bill Clinton trait. So does being good judge of character. So does guts.

Last but not least, it strikes me that the apparently endless analysis of Palin’s more superficial characteristics is likely to miss the mark because it misses an obvious clue. Palin’s political trajectory is rather out of the ordinary. There is, therefore, quite possibly some striking quality that she possesses that helps to explain this–one candidate quality being raw moral courage. For that matter, analysis of Barack Obama and his similarly unusual trajectory might benefit from a similar examination; what has he got that people want? I am skeptical that at the end of day intelligence matters to followers as much as other marks of character.

You can get the report at www.Transparency.org .

Interestingly, the BBC article below also talks about how the UK has dropped in the index due to their "complacency about worldwide corruption". The UK is known as a holdout in enforcing the UN's Convention on Corruption, which, if enforced, would make it easier for other countries like Iraq to prosecute their citizens who committed corruption and moved their funds to the UK. However, the UK is known for not enforcing the Convention rules, even though they formally signed the agreement.

Also, notice that the US is not listed in the 10 least corrupt countries... [USA is ranked #18 with a score of 7.3 out of 10]

Favorite quotes:

The high levels of corruption amount to a humanitarian disaster said Huguette Labelle, chair of the watchdog.

While Iraq remains in the same bottom-three position in the table as last year, the level of perceived corruption in the country collated by the Berlin-based organisation has increased.

The UK has dropped from 12th position down to 16th and the watchdog blames what it claims to be the UK's "engrained complacency over its failure to take international corruption seriously."

vj

Iraq has been ranked by Transparency International(TI) as one of the world's most corrupt countries, just above Somalia as the "least clean" state.

The index is based on perceptions of public sector corruption in 180 countries and territories.

The high levels of corruption amount to a humanitarian disaster said Huguette Labelle, chair of the watchdog.

At the bottom of the transparency table, along with Somalia and Iraq, are Burma, Haiti, Afghanistan and Sudan.

While Iraq remains in the same bottom-three position in the table as last year, the level of perceived corruption in the country collated by the Berlin-based organisation has increased.

The score is based on perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts.

'Tougher approach needed'

"In the poorest countries, corruption levels can mean the difference between life and death, when money for hospitals or clean water is in play," said Ms Labelle.

She added: "But even in more privileged countries, with enforcement disturbingly uneven, a tougher approach to tackling corruption is needed."

Sweden jumped up to join Denmark and New Zealand at the top of the table, while Finland slipped back from the top to fifth place.

Among those countries whose corruption score had worsened over the past year were Bulgaria, Burundi, Maldives, Norway and the UK, said TI.

The UK has dropped from 12th position down to 16th and the watchdog blames what it claims to be the UK's "engrained complacency over its failure to take international corruption seriously."

Chairman of the UK branch of TI, Laurence Cockcroft, said: "Many developed and developing countries find the UK's attitude inexplicable.

"Is it really so difficult to pass a proper anti-corruption law in 11 years since one was required and recommended?"

In the 2008 index, Qatar, South Korea and Turkey made significant progress in the fight against corruption.

Somalia is at the bottom of the table for a second year. The country has been without an effective central government since a military regime collapsed in 1991.

• War-hit nations head corrupt list
• Corruption threatens water supply for billions: report

Back in the mid- and even late 1990s, I was engaged in a lot of dreadfully boring telecom policy debates in which the proponents of regulation flatly refused to accept the argument that the hegemony of wireline communications systems would ever be seriously challenged by wireless networks. Well, we all know how that story is playing out today. People are increasingly “cutting the cord” and opting to live a wireless-only existence. For example, this recent Nielsen Mobile study on wireless substitution reports that, although only 4.2% of homes were wireless-only at the end of 2003…

At the end of 2007, 16.4 percent of U.S. households had abandoned their landline phone for their wireless phone, but by the end of June 2008, just 6 months later, that number had increased to 17.1 percent. Overall, this percentage has grown by 3-4 percentage points per year, and the trend doesn’t seem to be slowing. In fact, a Q4 2007 study by Nielsen Mobile showed that an additional 5 percent of households indicated that they were “likely” to disconnect their landline service in the next 12 months, potentially increasing the overall percentage of wireless-only households to nearly 1 in 5 by year’s end.

And one wonders about how many homes are like mine — we just keep the landline for emergency purposes or to redirect phone spam to that number instead of giving out our mobile numbers.  Beyond that, my wife and I are pretty much wireless-only people and I’m sure there’s a lot of others like us out there.

Anyway, I’ve been having a strange feeling of deva vu lately as I’ve been engaging in policy debates about the future of the video marketplace.  Like those old telecom debates of the last decade, we are now witnessing a similar debate — and set of denials — playing out in the video arena.  Many lawmakers and regulatory advocates (and even some industry folks) are acting as if the old ways of doing business are the only ways that still count.  In reality, things are changing rapidly as video content continues to migrate online.

I was reminded of that again this weekend when I was reading Nick Wingfield’s brilliant piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Turn On, Tune Out, Click Here.“  It is must-reading for anyone following development in this field.  As Wingfield notes:

In the past two years, nearly every major network show and many of the biggest cable programs have become available on the Internet. The virtual library of content includes everything from “Desperate Housewives” and “CSI” to “The Colbert Report” and “Mad Men.”

Some of the biggest hits online are memorable TV moments. More than half of the people who saw recent “Saturday Night Live” skits featuring comedian Tina Fey as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin watched the skits over the Internet, according to a survey of 500 viewers on Monday by Solutions Research Group. Nearly a quarter saw them on YouTube and 21% saw them on NBC.com or Hulu.com.

Many shows can be viewed for free and are accompanied by a dollop of ads that’s small when compared with the number of commercial breaks on television. As a result, some cost-conscious consumers are ditching their cable subscriptions altogether.

And the migration of video online is really picking up speed as a result.  According to Wingfield, “Complete episodes of about 90% of prime-time network television shows and roughly 20% of cable shows are now available online, according to Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey.”  However, Wingfield points out that “the number of people watching all of their programs online is still small; some estimates put the number at just 1% of the total television audience. In part, that’s because watching online isn’t as easy as channel surfing on the couch, TV remote in hand. Viewers must either watch shows on their personal computers, or use a device like Apple TV, which allows them to download shows from the Internet onto their television sets.”  That being said, he goes on to note that:

Within the next several years, however, media and technology executives say that a host of new technologies will make television access to online video a mainstream phenomenon. Vudu Inc. already sells a $299 set-top box with a remote control that allows users to download television shows for $1.99 per episode. Microsoft and Sony both sell television shows that users of their Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 videogame consoles can download over the Internet for viewing on television sets. Netflix subscribers can buy a $99 set-top box from Roku Inc. that streams videos on their television sets. The service is included at no extra charge in the monthly Netflix fee for renting DVDs.

And that’s just what’s happening today.  There will be a lot more options coming online soon.  Remember, most of these changes have all taken place in just the past couple of years.  If you look at the FCC’s last “Annual Video Competition Report” from two years ago, you won’t find much discussion of these new developments. But, if the FCC ever gets around to releasing another annual report, the regulators won’t be able to ignore these trends and developments any longer.

OK, so the point is clear: The video marketplace is changing rapidly. Meanwhile, however, back in the surreal regulatory la-la land of Washington, DC, it remains business as usual.  As Brian Anderson and I point out in our new book, A Manifesto for Media Freedom, policymakers are still trying applying a host of unique regulations to “old media” providers, including: various censorship rules, educational programming mandates, special campaign finance advertising laws, must carry regs, media ownership caps, broadcast “localism” requirements and various other “public interest” obligations, and much more.

At what point does this charade end?  When do we realize that substitution is occuring and giving people alternative places to camp their eyeballs?  Or doesn’t that make any difference?  Should we just continue to regulate the old platforms and players the same was as always?  Or, worse yet, should we “level the playing field” by regulating the Internet and online video providers the same way?  I hope most people would understand what a disaster that would be in practice.  The Internet and digital video delivery is offerning society an unprecedented abundance of media riches.  They last thing we need to do is screw it up by laying on reams of regulation.

A little XKCD-style humor:

If you don’t get it, “c” this.  Incidentally, you can easily add links to other search engines (as I have) by installing the CustomizeGoogle Firefox extension, among many other cool features.

So I was just finishing up this excellent new Pew report on “Teens, Video Games and Civics,” and was about to post some thoughts about it when I saw in my RSS feed that the brilliant Henry Jenkins had beat me to it in an essay entitled “Video Game Myths Revisited.” Prof. Jenkins summarizes the major findings of the Pew report as follows (note: He elaborates on each finding in his essay):

• At the most basic level, game playing has become more or less universal.
• The Pew research may also force us to rethink once again the assumption that there is a gender gap in terms of who plays games.
• The Pew Data complicates easy generalizations about the place of violent entertainment in the lives of American teens.
• The Pew Data further challenges the idea that game playing is a socially isolating activity.
• The Pew Research does indicate some areas where parents should be concerned about the gaming lives of their sons and daughters.
• The Pew Research also challenges the prevailing myth that most parents are worried or alarmed about their young people’s relations to games.

Anyway, make sure to read Henry’s write-up and the entire Pew report.  Good stuff.  [And here's the point where I once again shamelessly plug my old paper on video game myths and some of my other essays like "Dear Gov. Patterson… Regarding that Video Game Bill You Are About to Sign," "Understanding The True Cost of Video Game Censorship Efforts," "Do video games create cop killers?" and "Why hasn’t violent media turned us into a nation of killers?"]

Over at CDT’s “Policy Beta” blog, my friends John Morris and Sophia Cope have penned two important essays about online free speech issues that are worthy of your attention. In the first, Sophia argues that the “Next President Must Preserve Free Speech on the Internet.” She argues:

It will be critical for the next President to do his part to uphold the Internet’s robust culture of free speech and innovation as we march further into the 21st Century. In stark contrast to the mass media of the last century, the Internet has provided, at very low cost, virtually unlimited forums for both creators and consumers of new content and technologies. This in turn has created a huge boost for participatory democracy and our economy. The next Administration must reject Congressional or agency efforts to censor content or stifle the fire of innovation on the Internet and other communications media.

Amen! Importantly, Sophia points to the essential role of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which protects online service providers from crushing legal liability in a variety of circumstances. Sec. 230 is probably the most important — and most often forgotten — law dealing with online freedom. Unfortunately, however, it’s increasingly under attack and we need to be vigilant in defending it. (I’m working on a big paper about that right now with my PFF colleagues Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus).

In the second essay on the CDT blog today, John Morris notes how Congress has been passing a “flurry” of last-minute child safety bills. He points out:

While the public’s attention was focused on the drama unfolding around the economic bailout, it was actually a busy time for other bills to get pushed – sometimes under the cover of the bailout darkness. Just before recess, Congress considered parts of four “child safety” bills, acted on three, and sent two to the White House. While not all the provisions in these bills raise red flags, some language gives free expression advocates plenty to worry about.

One of the measures he discusses, S. 602, the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” was the subject of an essay I penned here a few days ago.

Anyway, make sure to read these excellent essays by Sophia and John.

A lot of the questions about ACTA are raised by reading between the lines of what little is known about the proposed agreement. Is the term “border measures” a reference to searching individual consumers’ devices at airports? Is a reference to “safeguards” for ISPs to “encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders” an attempt to shift the balance of rights and responsibilities under DMCA safe harbors?

These are some of the most pressing questions that are raised when it comes to ACTA, but they’re certainly not the only ones. While in a situation as opaque as this one, it’s critical to seek out what may be intentionally hidden in the unstated implications of the language, as well as the unintended consequences of broad language.

But that doesn’t mean that the face value of the language that’s there should be ignored, either.

read more

Check it out.