stephenfeltmate

The Music Industry's Betrayal of Capitalism

I purchase a LOT of music (yes, purchase - as opposed to stealing from artists whose music I appreciate). Every single music file on my computer is legitimate and that will never change.

What will change are the artists and record companies who get my money. Recently, I purchased a CD from EMI Canada (Korn: See You On The Other Side). It was a copy-protected CD but I did not have a problem with that and am in fact working on a business model that will incorporate this. Two other CDs that I recently purchased also had copy-protection and I had no problems utilizing their content with my digital music vendor (Apple - iTunes and iPod; excellent music quality and very highly rated in most consumer reports I have read). But not this CD.

In order copy digital music to one's computer you need to use its built-in software which is beyond painfully slow - it took about 15 minutes to copy the entire CD where it normally takes about 3 minutes when I use iTunes. But what really irked me is the fact that I cannot use iTunes to play this and I cannot copy it to my iPod!

On the back of the CD in very tiny lettering is a advisory beneath the line "Windows Media (WMA)/iPod" that says: "this may not be compatible with iPod". This is outright deception. They knew damn well that this wouldn't be compatible with iPod OR iTunes when they manufactured the CD!

You see the digital files are in WMA format and because they are protected iTunes cannot convert them to MP3 format. This means you have to use Windows Media Player or Winamp to play them. This is unacceptable to me. The record companies do NOT, in my opinion, have the right to impose on the consumer which vendor will be used to consume the content.

On EMI's website (http://www.emimusic.info/ca_EN/) it is explained that the reason the digital content is not iTunes compatible is because Apple is not licensing its solution. In other words, they are admitting that they have intentionally restricted consumer choice rather than waiting until all of the technical pieces were in place to roll out their copy-protection campaign. They rushed this to market without regard for how this would affect the very individuals who are funding their existence.

This is not just a betrayal of the consumer, this is a betrayal of capitalism. Capitalism depends on trust and confidence between the consumer and producer. While producers have every right to take action to protect their property and profits they do not have the right to restrict a consumer's choice of vendor. Doing so is not only unethical it erodes consumer confidence.

But it gets worse! Recently Song/BMG were caught red-handed installing spyware on consumer's computers. This spyware was created by a company called First 4 Internet and includes a "phone-home" component that contacts Sony over the Internet and provides their servers with specific information (http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/11/more-on-sony-dangerous-decloaking.html). Sony has been sued by California, Texas, and The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). This spyware can also leave a consumer's computer unstable and vulnerable to malicious hackers (http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html).

For more information see http://www.fedge.net/emi/

All those who truly believe in capitalism must take action immediately and boycott these companies' products and services until such a time that they demonstrate a renewed commitment to the fundamentals that allow our system of commerce to work. Continuing to support these organizations is to undermine one's own best interests as a consumer and a participant in capitalism.

The end of Iranian gamesmanship

The end of Iranian gamesmanship

On Tuesday January 31, Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani stated that if the Iran is referred to the UN Security Council it would be "the end of diplomacy".

Those watching the developments on this issue will understand what this means: an impasse has been reached, Iran has decided to dig in its heals, and the prospect of military confrontation has become very likely. The United States has a new European ally in the person of German Chancellor Angela Merkel; unlike in Iraq Europe will back US intervention this time. Even Russia appears to be on board.

Without a significant change in Iranian policy military conflict is almost certain.

Hamas win no cause for panic

Hamas win no cause for panic

In many ways the win by Hamas in the Palestinian January 25 legislative election was a positive outcome.

As George Bush observed, the Palestinian people demonstrated a renewed commitment to the democratic process and their disinterest in continuing to prop up a corrupt political organization that has done nothing to further the interests of the people it claimed to represent.

For years, Fatah skimmed millions, perhaps billions, of dollars of the foreign aid that was intended for the poorest and most vulnerable Palestinian citizens. Fatah was unable to control the militants, unable to negotiate with Israel because it was clear they would never be able to deliver on anything, and generally very poor administrators.

While the terrorist leanings of Hamas are definitely a concern it would appear they have been forced into a corner. They cannot possibly continue to support terrorist activity and expect the United States to allow the regime to remain in place. On the other hand it is going to be very difficult to control the jihadists in the party who are intent on the destruction of Israel. If only for reasons of political expediency reason would dictate that the party move quickly to center, renounce the jihadists and focus on properly managing the Palestinian state and improving the lives of its citizens.

If it does this, the international community absolutely must step forward and assist it both with dollars and security resources. If on the other hand it insists on maintaining its terrorist leanings then it must be obliterated.

The future of Palestine and the Palestinian people now rest in the hands of a few suddenly very powerful men. How history remembers them will depend on the degree to which jihadist ideology is ingrained in them.

Paul Martin MUST drop candidate Jim McMurty

Paul Martin MUST drop candidate Jim McMurty

Jim McMurty is a Liberal candidate in British Columbia (South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale). In today's edition of the National Post he is quoted as saying that evangelical Christians have hijacked the Conservative Party of Canada and supports this statement by pointing out that one third of Conservative candidates in B.C. are evangelical. He presents this as something that is negative.

Now just a minute: at what point in the conversation did it become legitimate to attack any individual or group solely on the basis of their faith? Let's replace the word "evangelical" with "Jewish" and see what a headline grabber that will be! Oh, but perhaps we didn't quite understand Mr. McMurty's point; he wasn't attacking evangelical Christians per se, he was just pointing out that evangelicals tend to hold certain "intolerant" positions on some issues. In other words, Mr. McMurty doesn't agree with evangelical Christians - or for that matter, a large percentage of the Jewish community - on certain issues and therefore it is improper that they should have a voice in a Canadian government.

This is a glaring example of deep-seated intolerance within Liberalism. Evangelicals have been consistantly targeted for exclusion by the Liberal party and it is time that Paul "I-respect-the-Charter" Martin demonstrate some leadership on the issue and put an end to it: beginning with the removal of Jim McMurty.

If Paul Martin continues to endorse Mr. McMurty as a Liberal candidate in this election this will signal to evangelical Christians, and all Canadians, that what the Liberals truly stand for is a regime that respects the rights of certain Canadians but excludes other Canadians on the basis of their faith. And if this is the case can Paul Martin truly claim to be the defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Can evangelical Christians trust him to protect their right to exist and freely express their beliefs in Canadian society?

And if Paul Martin is willing to endorse discrimination against one Canadian minority, what other minorities is he willing to allow his candidates to target for exclusion?

Liberals try to bride NDP candidate

Liberals try to bride NDP candidate

Jeffery Hansen-Carlson has filed a notarized statement with Elections Canada claiming that on January 10, 2006 he was approached by Liberal candidate David Oliver and his campaign manager Gordy Kahlon and offered a patronage political position if he would direct his supporters to vote for the Liberals.

Mr. Hansen-Carson's sworn statement can be found here: http://www.ccnmatthews.com/docs/npdstat.pdf

Jeffery Hansen-Carlson should be recognized as a great Canadian patriot who chose what was morally correct above what was, on the surface, personally valuable. In a just society, Mr. Oliver and company would be charged criminally and their names stricken from the ballot.

Harper Not "Right-Wing" Enough

Harper Not "Right-Wing" Enough

As Paul Martin continues to beat on the only Liberal campaign bongo remaining - that Stephen Harper is a right-wing ideologue who would turn Canada into a neo-conservative utopia - one should pause to reflect on how far to the right the current Conservative platform actually is.

Let's see: give families $1200 a year for child care; guarantee a maximum wait time in a publicly funded national healthcare system; add $500 million a year to further subsidize an already heavily subsidized agricultural industry (from 1991-2000 for every $1 farmers earned they were provided with $3.76 in provincial/federal subsidies) - does this sound more like a conservative or a socialist platform?

The fact is, there is no truly neo-conservative political party in Canada (except perhaps the Alberta Alliance - stay tuned). The environment for such an organization does not yet exist as the Canadian public is very much to the left of center and will remain there without a full commitment on the part of proud "right-wing ideologues" to shift public opinion to the rational right.

The Conservative Party of Canada in its current form is exactly what the Canadian public is demanding from their government. As prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper will provide Canadians with a clean, social democratic government with enough "right-wing ideology" mixed in to keep it from falling apart.

What is truly frightening is the fact that Paul Martin considers the Conservative party to be staunchly right-wing. What horrors did this knuckle-headed leftist have in mind if he actually had won a majority government? The thought is enough to drive even the most ardent right-wing athiest into the comfort of the Lord's prayer.

John Woo Is Right - and wrong

John Woo Is Right - and wrong

John Woo is considered to be the legal architect behind the notion that American presidential powers include the right to order torture with respect to the current "war on terror" - including the right to torture children (the actual question put to Mr. Woo was: "If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?" to which the reply was: "No treaty.")

In the legal sense, Mr. Woo's reasoning appears sound although I will leave it to legal experts to debate this. However, this does beg the question: even in the face of legal permissibility, does the President of the United States have a higher responsibility to the moral principles enshrined within the American Constitution?

The American Founding Fathers maintained that human beings inherently possessed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that an American president sought (and apparently found) a legal loophole that would contravene this fundamental principle should not in any way disuade the Administration from excising moral constraint.

Even to argue for the legal permissibility of the torture of children betrays a cold-blooded character that is distasteful to most. It is truly frightening to find this element of moral corruption within the leadership of the world's only super-power.

This again underscores the necessity of a Canadian government that possesses the moral authority to encourage - and in cases like this, demand - moral behaviour of its allies. The embarassment of the current Liberal-run regime must come to an end so that more important business - like establishing a world order that holds respect for human life as its fundamental prinicple - can be got on with.

The Same-Sex Marriage Hypocrisy

The Same-Sex Marriage Hypocrisy

As a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage legalization, I am astounded at the gullibility of both Canadians and the leftist element within the Canadian media whom one can only assume enjoys being played like a Hardanger fiddle.

We are presented with two apparently simple options: Paul Martin - for same-sex marriage - and Stephen Harper - opposed to same-sex marriage. Looking a little closer it is obvious that this is nonsense.

Paul Martin has never come out publicly in support of the principle of same-sex marriage. He has instead hidden behind statements like "I believe in the Charter" and "It is a Charter right". During his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party he would not even answer the question: "Are you for or against same-sex marriage?". When it came time to vote for C-13 he only imposed party discipline on his cabinet. Does this make any sense? If you honestly support a principle wouldn't you do as Jack Layton did and demand that all members adhere to the principle. But as we know Mr. Martin can count. He tried to present the appearance of "Parliamentary democracy" while shirking his obligation to remain consistent with a principle. If he really believed in either the acceptability of same-sex marriage within Canadian society or the Charter of Rights, he would have demanded that all Liberal members support his position.

The fact is the Liberal party has used the very important issue of same-sex marriage to position themselves politically. Groups like EGALE, while deeming themselves pragmatic, are in fact whoring out their principles in the misguided notion that they are advancing the welfare and social participation of gay, lesbien and bisexual Canadians. What they are in fact doing is playing into the Liberal political game of "divide Canadians, maintain political power".

For these groups to allow themselves to be put in a partisan position is exceptionally deterimental to the cause of gay and lesbien acceptance in Canadian society. They have succeeded only in combining an important social issue with political gamesmanship and are at serious risk of making the two inseparable and thus further marginalizing an important minority group. Rather than calling Paul Martin to account for his duplicity they have instead attacked Stephen Harper - perhaps the only politician in Canada who realizes the inevitability of same-sex marriage and the necessity of making the issue go away in order to maintain Canadian (and Conservative) unity.

Stephen Harper has committed to re-opening the issue in Parliament. He did this for a couple of reason. First, a good deal of his support base is opposed to same-sex marriage and he could not risk eroding this in an extremely tight election - remaining silent on the issue was not an option. Second, he realizes that this issue is one of the top 3 divisive issues within the Conservative Party of Canada. In order for the Conservative party to remain united this issue must receive closure - and the imposition of C-13 in Parliament does not constitue closure in the minds of many Conservative Canadians. In a minority Parliament, putting the issue to an open vote is unlikely to result in the restoration of traditional marriage. Even though their are a large number of Liberals who are openly opposed to same-sex marriage there would probably be enough Bloc, NDP and socially progressive Liberal and Conservative votes to defeat the issue - and finally, finally, bring closure to this issue.

The gay equality movement must immediately revisit their approach in the advocacy of same-sex marriage. They must commit to a democratically arrived at solution in order to maintain their wins over the longer term. Going in the back door through the Canadian judicial system - in co-operation with the Liberal party - with the intention of "imposing equality" will only serve to further marginalize the gay community and increase the likelihood of a backlash that could set the movement back twenty years or more. They must also commit to distancing themselves from partisan political gamesmanship and realize when they are being used for political purposes. Sometimes achieving one's objectives slowly over time is more effective than a quick victory that cannot be maintained in the long term.

The Same-Sex Marriage Hypocrisy

The Same-Sex Marriage Hypocrisy

As a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage legalization, I am astounded at the gullibility of both Canadians and the leftist element within the Canadian media whom one can only assume enjoys being played like a Hardanger fiddle.

We are presented with two apparently simple options: Paul Martin - for same-sex marriage - and Stephen Harper - opposed to same-sex marriage. Looking a little closer it is obvious that this is nonsense.

Paul Martin has never come out publicly in support of the principle of same-sex marriage. He has instead hidden behind statements like "I believe in the Charter" and "It is a Charter right". During his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party he would not even answer the question: "Are you for or against same-sex marriage?". When it came time to vote for C-13 he only imposed party discipline on his cabinet. Does this make any sense? If you honestly support a principle wouldn't you do as Jack Layton did and demand that all members adhere to the principle. But as we know Mr. Martin can count. He tried to present the appearance of "Parliamentary democracy" while shirking his obligation to remain consistent with a principle. If he really believed in either the acceptability of same-sex marriage within Canadian society or the Charter of Rights, he would have demanded that all Liberal members support his position.

The fact is the Liberal party has used the very important issue of same-sex marriage to position themselves politically. Groups like EGALE, while deeming themselves pragmatic, are in fact whoring out their principles in the misguided notion that they are advancing the welfare and social participation of gay, lesbien and bisexual Canadians. What they are in fact doing is playing into the Liberal political game of "divide Canadians, maintain political power".

For these groups to allow themselves to be put in a partisan position is exceptionally deterimental to the cause of gay and lesbien acceptance in Canadian society. They have succeeded only in combining an important social issue with political gamesmanship and are at serious risk of making the two inseparable and thus further marginalizing an important minority group. Rather than calling Paul Martin to account for his duplicity they have instead attacked Stephen Harper - perhaps the only politician in Canada who realizes the inevitability of same-sex marriage and the necessity of making the issue go away in order to maintain Canadian (and Conservative) unity.

Stephen Harper has committed to re-opening the issue in Parliament. He did this for a couple of reason. First, a good deal of his support base is opposed to same-sex marriage and he could not risk eroding this in an extremely tight election - remaining silent on the issue was not an option. Second, he realizes that this issue is one of the top 3 divisive issues within the Conservative Party of Canada. In order for the Conservative party to remain united this issue must receive closure - and the imposition of C-13 in Parliament does not constitue closure in the minds of many Conservative Canadians. In a minority Parliament, putting the issue to an open vote is unlikely to result in the restoration of traditional marriage. Even though their are a large number of Liberals who are openly opposed to same-sex marriage there would probably be enough Bloc, NDP and socially progressive Liberal and Conservative votes to defeat the issue - and finally, finally, bring closure to this issue.

The gay equality movement must immediately revisit their approach in the advocacy of same-sex marriage. They must commit to a democratically arrived at solution in order to maintain their wins over the longer term. Going in the back door through the Canadian judicial system - in co-operation with the Liberal party - with the intention of "imposing equality" will only serve to further marginalize the gay community and increase the likelihood of a backlash that could set the movement back twenty years or more. They must also commit to distancing themselves from partisan political gamesmanship and realize when they are being used for political purposes. Sometimes achieving one's objectives slowly over time is more effective than a quick victory that cannot be maintained in the long term.

Iran and Syria: prepare for regime change

Iran and Syria: prepare for regime change

Can the fact that Porter Goss, director of the CIA, approached Turkish intelligence officials with news that Iran is now armed with nuclear weapons be taken at face value? I would suggest probably not. In all likelihood, and according to Israeli intelligence, Iran does not yet possess a nuclear bomb - just as Iraq was not in possession of WMDs.

Abdul-Halim Khaddam, the former vice-president of Syria, revealed in an interview with Paris-based al-Arabiya that Syria was almost certainly behind the assination of Lebanese prime minister Hariri. An aquaintance of mine from Syria reported to me that there are rumours circulating within the Arabic media that he was paid $30 million for this interview. This is probably true. When the US went into Afghanistan they sent in CIA agents with $70 million to buy off warlords who then acted as part of America's military-for-hire. Purchasing testimony and/or military assistance is an activity that oftens precedes US operations.

Consider that Khaddam was one of the key architects of the current corrupt Syrian regime and one has to wonder if his attack on the Syrian government has more to do with heartfelt concern for his homeland or the fact that he has seen the writing on the wall and acted in his own best interests.

In all likelihood, we are seeing the political groundwork of US military intervention in both Iran and Syria with the objective being to deal a lethal blow to Islamic jihadists before the end of Bush's second term. This intervention could take place as early March 2006.

This time, Canada must play a strong diplomatic support role. The United States is exerting its authority as the world's only superpower and if Canada does not want to become a 2nd-tier country in terms of international influence it absolutely must choose to be on the side of the inevitable victors. Vacillation will cost us dearly.