The GOP is rightfully trying to reach out to minority voters. There are a number of ways to go about it, and politicians and pundits are trying just about every one. It's a tricky process, inviting in Hispanics and Blacks without alienating the solid white, conservative base of the party. There will be many growing pains but the most dangerous thing that the GOP can do is nothing, or worse, fight the inevitable demographic trends.

One thing I really wish that we would stop doing, though, is using the argument that it was the Democrats who instituted Jim Crow. It's true, of course, but largely irrelevent. Our continued attempts to push this point is at best futile and at worst condescending. It's assuming that they don't know what everyone should know: The parties have changed over the years.

Yes, the Democrats have an abysmal record on civil rights in the past. That is, however, they're past. They've moved from being wrong (pro-segregation) to being... well... wrong (affirmative action)... but in a very different way. The Democrats today would hardly endorse their policies of thirty years ago. The same can be said of Republicans, of course. The northeastern liberal establishment that used to run the GOP is no longer prevalent and the Rockerfellian idealogues have bolted the party for the most part. Similarly, many of the southern conservatives have switched from their party to ours. When we talk about the old southern Democrats, we're talking about Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, and a host of others that are known more prominantly for being on our team.

The past is the past and we should leave it there. The parties have changed enough to render comparisons moot. What we need to concentrate on is the present. What do we have to offer minorities right now? We have faith-based government programs, school choice, and religious conservatism that they already agree with us on. We have empowerment programs that even though they don't agree with us presently, we can try to show them how our programs are ultimately in their best interest. If we can't convince them of that, then we have to write them off or change our policies. The latter being a dangerous proposition, because we'll never out-Democrat the Democrats.

Our ideas are better. We need to convince them of that. We don't need to convince them that our ideas were better thirty years ago.

I am generally inclined to agree with the pro-Napster, anti-RIAA side of the copyright debates. That record companies charge so much for a CD when all you really want is a song or two is ludicrous. The RIAA is also quite apparently guilty of various anti-trust laws.

None of this changes the fact, though, that as the law stands they own the rights to the music that many people download for free. Yes, they're ripping off the artists. Yes, they're ripping off the consumers. However, the artists signed the contract. It's theirs. They can legally do what they want.

More than the law, though, there is an ethical implication to all of this. It is their moral right to charge what they want and disseminate their works as they so desire. It is our moral wrong to subvert that buy downloading and burning CD's that we would otherwise buy. Most claim not to do this -- and many don't -- but many do. They know they do.

I'm a writer who hopes to some day write books. When I do have them written, I would like as many people to read my books as possible. So I might freely distribute my book on the web. At the same time, I'd also like to make a living writing. So I may shop the books around to publishers. Truth be told, more people will read it if it's published, publicized, and sold than if it is given away. That's a bargain I may be willing to make.

So then let's take the Napster of the novel world, if there was one. If I had a book published and someone "ripped" it and put it online, people who otherwise might buy the book might now download it and print it out for free. My publisher loses money. They don't sign me to another book deal. I've therefore lost the aforementioned right to choose how I want to publish my works. If it means more people read my writing, then that's good. If it means that I won't be able to write as much because I have to work longer hours, that's bad.

On the third hand, the point of (most) art is for it to be read, watched, or listened to. Anyone who would rather 10 people buy and pay for their works than 1,000,000 view/listen/read them with only 5 actually paying for it isn't an artist, and popular culture can easily do without them. In fact, the fame and "fortune" of the record company breeds a kind of artist-hack that we can all do without. One of the reasons I like local artists over national ones is that I know they all want to be playing. If they were out simply for a record deal, they would be in California, New York, or Nashville.

However (am I on the fourth hand now?), even non-hack-artists need to eat. If they don't have to spend their days working at IBM, the consumers win because they can write and perform more. Recently I have read many proposed ways that record companies could capitalize on the Internet, get increased listenership AND make money.

In the end, that's what it's going to come down to. We have to spend money. We have to be willing to spend money. We need to let go of the idea that art should inherently be free and anyone who charges for it is some sort of criminal. Even if (in the case of the RIAA) we really don't like who is charging us for it.

The record companies say that we are downloading music for free because we want something for nothing and that the only way to stop us is to deny us the technology to do it.

We respond that we would pay for CD's if they weren't so lousy (2 good songs on a CD with 10 mediocre ones) and overpriced.

If we REALLY want the record companies to change their ways, we have to prove that we are willing to pay for music. If we continue to indignantly download their music without paying for any of it, we're simply proving their point. Of course, if we pay the record labels then we're encouraging them (they were trying to shut down Napster long before record sales slummed). We need to find a way to pay for the works, pay the artists, and not reward the record companies. Anyone have any ideas?

Over and over again I hear that the record companies just need to be more creative in the way they market their product.

Maybe we need to try to be creative in the way we buy it.

"Please do not tilt the vending machine" -Sign on refrigerator next to the vending machine where I work.

"I'll stop tilting you when you give me my damn Reece's cups." -Alex Whitlock, in response.

After a 25 second stand-off (or should that be tilt-off?), Whitlock emerged victorious.

"Yates Faces The End Alone" (Houston Chronicle, 3/19/2)

It brings about images of a poor woman who everyone has turned their back on. It almost makes you feel sympathetic. It almost makes you feel bad for her. It almost makes you forget that she slaughtered her children.

Almost, but not quite.

For those of you outside Houston and therefore unaware, the higher-ups (Federal Government twisted the arm of the Texas state government who twisted the arm of local governments) have declared that Houston pollution is so bad that we need to lower speed limits to 55mph to reduce the gas emissions. I've tried to come up with reasons why a 70mph limit is better than a 55mph limit, but so far have been unable to. Emissions are better at 55 and the roads are documentably safer. Fine. Screw safety, screw the environment, I want to go fast. Houston is geographically the second or third largest city in the country. Nothing is close to anything. I live ten miles from where I work, and it's still 30-minutes to work and 45-minutes back because of traffic. I could only dream of going 55-mph during my commute. However, that means when I'm driving to Clear Lake (half way between Houston and Galveston, about 45 miles from where I live) I want to get there as quickly as possible. I want to enjoy the open road. I'm often traveling very late at night, I'm unlikely to get into an accident, and I just feel stupid driving 55-mph on a desolate freeway at 3 in the morning. On those rare instances when I can actually drive fast, I want to be able to do so!

That doesn't change, of course, the safety and ecological ramifications. Consider this, however: I have little to gain by getting into an accident. If I do, I will likely suffer a lot more than some bureaucrat in Washington. If, god forbid, I hurt someone else or someone else hurts me because they cause an accident, then that is a chance I'm willing to take. What about the other guy, you ask? Fine, then. Put it up to a vote. If a majority of citizens of Houston and the eight surrounding counties want 55-mph speed limits, then let's have them. They don't, though, because we could have lowered the limits at any time. We haven't. Why? Because it's an unpopular thing to do. People, like me, want to go fast. It should be our choice.

So, on that note, a law that makes us safer and helps the environment can go to hell.

Stuart Banner of Volokh writes:

We'll be hearing lots about affirmative action over the next year or so, now that the Supreme Court will decide the two Michigan cases. Listen closely to the chatter, and try to find someone whose opinion about the constitutionality of affirmative action doesn't replicate his or her opinion about the wisdom of affirmative action -- that is, someone who says either "affirmative action is a great idea, but it's a shame that the constitution doesn't permit it," or "affirmative action is a terrible idea, but the constitution allows it." Such people are very rare. One's constitutional thought has a way of closely tracking one's preferences as to outcome.

Actually, that about sums it up perfectly for me. Though I wouldn't call affirmative action a "great" idea, I've never been firmly with the conservative camp on this one. There are a lot of white people out there who would, all things being equal, hire other whites. Similarly, there are a lot of minorities who want to hire fellow minorities over whites. There is the natural tendency of people to be more comfortable with their own. Not just race-wise, but demographic-wise as well. The more you have in common with someone, the more likely you are to want to work with them. It's a fact of life. It's not going away. Affirmative action combats this.

Of course, what affirmative action really does is benefit middle-class minorities and acts to the detriment of lower-class whites. I'm the first to admit that it's not fair. But then again, it's not fair without affirmative action, either. One way or another, someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

New York's comic book alter-ego Gotham has its Dark Knight in Batman, but it turns out the real city has its own caped crusader. Lotharios everywhere, beware, because Terrifica, scarlet-costumed avenger and protector of women, is on the prowl on the city's party scene.

She wears a mask and tights. She goes to bars. She has serious emotional issues with men.

I'm way too attracted to that. If I wasn't at work, I'd take a cold shower right now...

[Link via Amygdala]