SOPA/PIPA Brain dump... for free!

#SOPA & #PIPA – what great ideas! Well, wait a minute… are they?

Let’s see, I’m Google and I’m told that all US Companies will be responsible if any of their users download copyrighted content through their site. Okay, time to become a non-US Company. And that's only one dog-eared corner of the issue.

Big business already complains about the tax rate for American companies. Many have made sure they are protected from that by having their corporate offices moved out of the country. So let’s create legislation that makes it even more desirable to be a foreign company.  Congress can not pass such laws and then claim to be working to create jobs for Americans. This is a major job creator for other countries – or more accurately – it will be as time progresses.

Having a healthy history with the music industry I am absolutely against piracy. I believe that we should get only what we deserve for the work we do. Artists, writers and musicians (and their like) should receive the compensation they have earned through hard work. It is their creativity, their brain that came up with the piece and to not pay them for that is absolutely stealing (which is already illegal anywhere).

Yet it is harder and harder to punish international firms for allowing such theft. So our government is settling by punishing our own firms who abide by laws that are already stricter than their international counterparts? It seems like we’ve created our own royal whipping boy.

It is difficult to have faith in Congress right now. But on this, I’m going to try. Every elected official is already over-extended on the country’s good will credit. If they do not listen to the outcry on this particular set of laws under review, they can kiss their collective arses goodbye. For this reason I hold out hope that these acts will be stalled or mellowed to placate those with issues; call me an optimist I guess (just don’t tell my kids that). But how to proceed?

Let’s face it; the only entity who has the power to prevent criminal behavior is the person considering the criminal act. Making it hard for a criminal to be a criminal will only make for smarter and more devious criminals. Mentality must be changed. Users must stop doing the wrong thing because it IS a wrong thing, not because they are forced to. If we are a society for free choice we can not limit the choices available.

But to offer a criticism without a suggested resolution is just mean. And of course, I have an idea… but it scares me so much I’m afraid to even post it in a public format. A hint though? Well truly the ones being abused here are the artists/creators right? So what are THEY willing to do about it? Are they ready to stop hiding behind the governments and take their own action (or more accurately “inaction”)?

By the way, I create here for my own uses. This place is my brain dump. If someone takes an idea from my blog and uses it I don’t expect payment other than a thanks and maybe a mention. But my day job is another story. I don’t type a word, I don’t send a tweet or create a campaign without being paid for it. That stuff doesn’t just fall out of my head – I really have to work at it. So I expect more in return. Do all artists make that distinction?

Power in the Wrong Hands

Many of our elected Representatives have signed a pledge to never raise taxes while in office. We, the people who elected them, did not ask them to sign this pledge. We did not vote for or against them based on the fact that they did sign this pledge. A lobbyist organization asked them to sign the pledge. We, the people being represented by this elected official, did not hire the lobbyist organization to obtain this signed pledge. This organization claims to act on behalf of the people but they are not acting with our approval or our request.

The question of whether or not raising taxes is a proper course of action can not be answered by me. I am absolutely NOT a financial wizard. But to bind the hands of our elected officials and restrict (even if voluntarily) their paths for action goes against the freedom of choice our founders aimed for.
When our representatives convene they take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Within the text of the Constitution lies Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes.

Therefore to sign a separate pledge to never raise taxes while in office goes against the oath they then take to act on that office. In essence if our Representatives continue to uphold this tax pledge while still serving under an Oath of Office they are lying through either one oath or another. I personally find this treasonous. Is there not an attorney out there who might find better language to explain this act?

The question here is not about taxes being raised. The question is about who our representatives are representing. So here is my oath:

I will no longer vote for anyone running for office if they have signed or agreed to sign this taxation pledge.

Why should I pay for stupid??

If ever there was a time to re-invent our government it would be now. Our two parties have landed us in a deadlock of philosophy. Do we borrow more or do we spend less? Do we demand more from our citizens to pay for our lifestyle or do we cut the lifestyle down? There is absolutely no way the framers had this situation in mind when they declared our country ready to stand on its own feet.

We must be free. We must not be beholden to anyone as our rights are born with us. But this time we chose to be beholden to someone. We chose to borrow the money from other countries & institutions. We can not be free if we have to answer to our debt holders. But I digress…

What if we stood up together, all Americans, and said “I hired these people to run the country well. They are not performing their jobs and I wish to fire them. My taxes will not go toward paying their salaries until we have new elections and start fresh”. We would still file and pay our taxes but instead of paying the IRS we would hold the money in escrow until a new government is sworn in.

Of course that doesn’t help the current situation. Launching such a campaign now would surely cause our country to go into default and we would suffer both in the short term and long term. What do we do now?

We compromise!

There are two sides. Both sides are wrong. Both sides, if they have their way, will cause some sort of damage to our economy or our lifestyle. The best we can hope for is to minimize the damage. Take what hurts the least from both parties and shelve the rest. I don’t want the ceiling raised. It makes no sense to borrow more money when we can’t pay back what we owe now. But I’m not stupid enough to think we can go through life without paying for what we need. We will have to raise taxes. We will have to close loopholes. Should we hit the rich more than anyone else? No, if they’ve earned their wealth they should be able to enjoy it. If they had their wealth handed to them (like a gift or from a relative’s passing) that’s another story. You earn it, you keep it.

Companies should not pay a fortune to do business here, not if we want people to seek the American dream. We can’t dangle that carrot and then tell them to pay extra for the pleasure of eating it when they finally get it!

The Church's Monopoly on Charity

When I was about 17 years old a family member passed away in Tennessee, a cousin of my Grandmother. My Grandmother was not healthy at the time so she sent my mother and I to represent her at the funeral. The cousin lived across the street from the local church she was very involved with. Her house was a beautiful southern home, with a large garden complete with porch swings and such. Being in and around that house I was absolutely in heaven. It was so beautiful; not large or pretentious, more lived in and full of love. I would have loved to live there.

It shocked me to find out that when she passed away she donated the house to the church. That was the first time I'd heard of that being done.

I have since come to know that it is commonplace for people to leave their belongings to the church of their choice after they pass on. I understand this practice; it is a way to assure the particular church can continue on and do well even though the person is no longer alive to pursue that cause in person.

But how many of us have thought to leave our belongings to the government; local government especially. Why is the church’s ability to continue on and do well more important than the local government who provide safety and security to the area where the church is located?

Or what about leaving your house to a local school? In this time of budget concerns this might help to provide better leadership for the future to assure both the Church and the Government perservere as well. It is obvious we can not count on taxes alone to help these entities do well.

I speak, of course, about those who either have no family to leave their things to, or whose family is already well cared for. Religious houses have always been known to be dependent on the charity of others. Maybe it is time we look at who else might need that charity too.