Conservative Supreme Court Justice warned us about money as speech

Back in 1978, Justice William Renquist wrote a dissent that is extraordinary reading today. This nugget of jurisprudence was dug up by Linda Greenhouse, who write an excellent NYT Op-Ed titled "Over the Cliff."

This dissenting justice did not take issue with a corporation’s status as a “person” in the eyes of the law (as Mitt Romney recently reminded a heckler at the Iowa State Fair). But corporate personhood was “artificial,” not “natural,” the justice observed. A corporation’s rights were not boundless but, rather, limited, and the place of “the right of political expression” on the list of corporate rights was highly questionable. “A state grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity,” the dissenting opinion continued. “It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere … Indeed, the states might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed.”

Noting that most states, along with the federal government, had placed limits on the ability of corporations to participate in politics, the dissenting justice concluded: “The judgment of such a broad consensus of governmental bodies expressed over a period of many decades is entitled to considerable deference from this Court.

Continue ReadingConservative Supreme Court Justice warned us about money as speech

Why is writing so difficult

Why is writing so difficult, and why is it that I write so slowly? These are two questions addressed by a well-written and presumably slowly-written article by Michael Aggar at Slate.

Kellogg is always careful to emphasize the extreme cognitive demands of writing, which is very flattering. "Serious writing is at once a thinking task, a language task, and a memory task," he declares. It requires the same kind of mental effort as a high-level chess match or an expert musical performance. We are all aspiring Mozarts indeed. So what's holding us back? How does one write faster? Kellogg terms the highest level of writing as "knowledge-crafting." In that state, the writer's brain is juggling three things: the actual text, what you plan to say next, and—most crucially—theories of how your imagined readership will interpret what's being written. A highly skilled writer can simultaneously be a writer, editor, and audience.

Continue ReadingWhy is writing so difficult

You may not talk like that . . .

Several weeks ago I passed this restroom door, which was located in a grocery store. Cannot?  Oh yeah?  That sign made me want to prove the sign wrong by carrying tons of merchandise into the restroom until it was completely full of merchandise. I don't know why the "can" vs. "may" error gripes me so much--perhaps it's because I hear and see this problem so often, and also because it seems that it would be so very easy to understand the problem and stop making the error.

Continue ReadingYou may not talk like that . . .

Final Cut Pro X + Izzy Videos = excellent videos

Until last week, I was using Final Cut Express 4 on my iMac. It took me quite a bit of time to get familiar with the many features of Final Cut Express--I struggled so much to remember how to access the many features that I created a single-spaced four-page cheat sheet. Then, just when I finally got comfortable with Final Cut Express, Apple released a new ground-up version of Final Cut Pro (version X). It has major improvements compared to FCE, including background rendering, re-design of the work areas, ability to tag and categorize clips and much more. The previous version of Final Cut Pro sold for $800, whereas the brand new Final Cut Pro X sells for only $300. I hesitated to buy the new version, despite the many improvements, because I didn't want to spend a lot of time training up on a new video  program (as I did when I ditched Adobe Premier Elements (on my PC) in order to move to Final Cut Express on an iMac). Nonetheless, I took the plunge last week, downloading FCP X from the online Apple Store (the only way to buy it). One factor in upgrading was the recommendation of Izzy Hyman, who offers first-rate video instruction at his membership-based site. In fact, Izzy now offers 25 free lessons on Final Cut Pro X at his site (Note: I've written about Izzy once before.).  His lessons cover each of the following topics, and each lesson includes high-quality screencasts: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingFinal Cut Pro X + Izzy Videos = excellent videos

Telecommunications industry working overtime to misrepresent net neutrality

I don’t believe that money is speech, but I’ve repeatedly seen that money motivates dishonest speech, much of it uttered by paid “experts.” This money-motivated dishonesty is a recurring problem regarding many issues, including the topic of this article, net neutrality. On August 8, 2011, I was pleased to see that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published my letter to the editor on the topic of net neutrality.  Here’s the full text of my letter:

Maintain neutrality We pay Internet service providers to move data from point to point. We don't pay them to steer us to selected sites (by speeding up access times) or to discourage us from using other sites (by slowing down or blocking access). Nor do we pay them to decide what applications we can use over the Internet. I should be free to use Skype even if it competes with the phone company's own telephone service. Giving Internet users this unimpeded choice of content and applications is the essence of "net neutrality," and it has inspired unceasing innovation over the Internet. The Senate soon may vote on a "resolution of disapproval" that would strip the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to protect Americans from potential abuses. If it passes, net neutrality would be at serious risk. Congress is under big pressure (and receiving big money) from companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, who want to become the gatekeepers of the Internet. They would like to carve up the Internet so that it would become like cable TV, with tiered plans and limited menus of content that they would dictate. Phone companies should not be allowed to dictate how we use the Internet. I urge Sens. Claire McCaskill and Roy Blunt to support net neutrality by voting against the resolution of disapproval. Erich Vieth • St. Louis
I wrote this letter as a concerned citizen.  I have long been concerned about net neutrality.  I have seen ample evidence that increasingly monopolistic telecommunications companies have no qualms about forcibly assuming the role of Internet gate-keeper.  As for-profit entities, their instinct is to limit our Internet choices if it would make them ever greater piles of money. Call me a pragmatist based on America’s television experience; telecommunications companies want to control how we use the Internet much like cable TV companies shove users into programming packages in order to maximize profit. On August 18, 2011, I noticed that the Post-Dispatch published an anti-net-neutrality letter. Here is the text of that letter: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingTelecommunications industry working overtime to misrepresent net neutrality