Rewriting Godwin's Law

"Godwin's Law" is an observation made by attorney and author Mike Godwin, which states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I believe that the law needs a corollary to fit the Obama age: "In discussing any political issue the probability of anyone who disagrees with views held by the current administration being a racist is automatically 1."

Disagree with the Health Care overhaul? It's because you're racist. Disagree with the stimulus bill? You're racist. Disagree with the government take-over of the auto industry? You're a racist.

Those on the left are incapable of believing anyone could disagree with them, and they are afraid that anyone else might listen to those who disagree with them. Rather than admit disagreement can exist based on the logical, political, social, economic, or historical merits of an issue, the only possible reason anyone could have for disliking current policies or legislation is because there is a black man in the White House. They know it is a difficult charge to defend against, so they invoke it early and often to quickly drag any discussion away from the actual merits of an issue.

I am not saying there is no racism in America, nor am I saying that there aren't people who disagree with Obama solely because of race. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who would support the administration heart and soul if there just weren't a black man at its head. But people like that are the exception, not the rule.

Meanwhile, the real cases of racism in this country are being overshadowed by this pathetic excuse for a debate technique, which is in reality the same thing as wrapping up your opponent in boxing so they can't punch you with any effectiveness. It's illegal in boxing, and we should not allow it in discussion or debate.

In fact, it's time to strike back. Why do we accept the charge of racism as the end of discussion? Is this not America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty? Next time someone calls you racist you have every right to insist they offer proof. They can't, and they know it, so they will likely attempt to point out some latent racist leanings in your past or some other nonsense.

But don't accept that. Reframe the argument. Ask them if what they are really saying is that there is no other possible reason for someone to be against issue X. If they say yes then you may now accuse them of prejudice and ignorance. If they say no, ask them why they would automatically assume racism is your motivation when there is no proof that you are racist. Does that not prove that they themselves are prejudiced?

The argument is so easily turned on its head, but no one ever seems to try. One does not have to be racist to oppose the ideas of this administration. To assume one is a racist because they do is dishonest and morally bankrupt--and ultimately detrimental to the real fight against real racism.

Both sides should have a vested interest in removing this particular tactic from play as soon as possible before real damage is done.

Three articles of interest

Which to talk about? All of them: Obama brings about watered-down change, unnecessary copyright protections, and our staggering national debt.

Is diluted change really change?
Clive Crook writes in the Financial Times:

Mr Obama aims to keep his promises, which is admirable. Unfortunately, there is a problem. This is not, as many Republicans argue, that neither issue requires forthright action. Both do. The problem is that the bills emerging from Congress are bad and Mr Obama does not seem to mind.

I've noticed that. It's like he's still in the Illinois legislature and still trying to pad his resume. "Lets see, I promised to deal with Global Warming, revise our health care system, and get us out of Iraq. Okay, let's get Congress to pass some bills about those topics so I can check these off my to-do list." It doesn't matter if the bills are bad legislation. It doesn't matter if they actually accomplish what he promised. They just need to have the write terms attached to them.

I've seen very few who really like the Cap-and-Trade bill on either side of the issue. The Right feels it will have a terrible impact on business. The Left feel is won't actually accomplish anything. Does ANYONE like this bill besides Pelosi and Obama?

Should copyright law be used to protect certain business models?
Jeff Jarvis over at Buzz Machine calls out certain lawyers-cum-lobbyists for advocating bad copyright law:

Following the frighteningly dangerous thinking of Judge Richard Posner – proposing rewriting copyright law to outlaw linking to and summarizing (aka talking about) news stories – now we have two more lemming lawyers following him off the cliff in a column written by the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Connie Schultz.

...

Schultz says that David Marburger, an alleged First Amendment attorney for her paper, and his economics-professor brother, Daniel, have concocted their own dangerous thinking, proposing the copyright law be changed to insist that a newspaper’s story should appear only on its own web site for the first 24 hours before it can be aggregated or retold.

Incredible. So if the Plain Dealer reported exclusively that, say, the governor had just returned from a tryst with a Argentine lady, no one else could so much as talk about that for 24 hours. A First Amendment lawyer said this.

So this post would not be possible if Posner and company get their way. I have to wonder how many news organizations actually support this bad idea. If there is a problem on the internet, it's from bloggers, et al, not attributing/linking their sources. Do they realize that if the law is changed the way they want people will just start summarizing and not link to their sites? As long as they paraphrase carefully it will be difficult to prove they lifted it from their site.

And yes, Jarvis raises a good point. Would this inadvertently impact other news sources who develop the story independently? Would it impact the AP News Service in that the first newspaper that prints an AP story is the only one allowed to do so for 24 hours?

That these people appear to have thought this through so little frightens me.

Congressional Budget Office issues warning
The Washington Post has coverage on the CBO's latest warning to the administration:

Now comes the CBO with yet more news of the sort that neither Capitol Hill nor the White House is likely to welcome: its freshly released report on the federal government's long-term financial situation. To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO's most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 -- roughly double what it was in 2008. By 2026, spiraling interest payments would push the debt above its all-time peak (set just after World War II) of 113 percent of GDP. It would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.

This huge mass of debt, which would stifle economic growth and reduce the American standard of living, can be avoided only through spending cuts, tax increases or some combination of the two. And the longer government waits to get its financial house in order, the more it will cost to do so, the CBO says.

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

It's Not All One-Sided

I've been wondering why the GOP hasn't been pushing harder on Congressional ethics. Politico has the answer:

Republicans say they don’t want to ignite a full-blown ethics war like the one that dominated the House in the 1990s, but there’s another cause for their caution: If they were to file a complaint against Murtha or anyone else, Democrats would retaliate by filing their own complaints against Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and Don Young (R-Alaska).

In short, their own house isn't clean enough yet. However, if I were Pelosi and Reid (and I'm obviously not), I wouldn't wait for the GOP to force me to clean up my act--especially when I promised to do just that two years ago. I'd start now and lead the way. If they were to relentlessly push ethics in their own party they would be able to cut the GOP off at the knees.

But they haven't done that, and they won't. There's too much of a chance that they'll lose their near supermajority if they do. Heaven forbid they should actually have to work a little and maybe even compromise! No, it's better to hang on to the crooks in the party than have to give an inch to the GOP.

Unfortunately it's probably the smart move. The GOP isn't doing enough on their side to clean up their own house, and so won't have enough of a leg to stand on.

Super-Majority

It appears the Democrats will fail to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The article has disappeared from MSNBC.com already, but judging from the comments section, people on both sides of the aisle agree that's a good thing.