Tuesday, July 29, 2003

Anti-Catholic Litmus Test. The normally interesting Volokh Conspiracy numbers this bit of disconnected reasoning about the supposed anti-catholic litmus test.  Juan Non-Volokh tells us that in his opinion the behavior of the democratic committee members does in fact amount to anti-catholicism, and hence religious discrimination. What he utterly fails to do is pull back and think about the natural conflict between secular law and religious dogma.  I deliberately use the word dogma, not belief, but that's just my personal spin.  The thing is, there are all kinds of people in this world who believe all kinds of crazy things, and all kinds of not-so-crazy things.  Those beliefs can, will, and have come in direct conflict with laws that are set up to keep society on something of a sane keel. If I am a participant in some religion that demands that I, as a member, violently affirm in every way shape or form, without exception, the right of a parent to determine all matters related to that parent's child, am I qualified to sit on the bench?  The answer is -- it depends. It depends on what I'm going to do with my belief.  The settled law of the land is that parents have certain obligations when it comes to their children.  If they do not meet these minimal obligations, they can lose their rights as parents, and even be guilty of criminal charges.  Society has engaged a consensus around this issue -- one for which participation is mandatory, even for non-believers. Now -- as a member of my church of "I'll do what I want when I want to my children", I am facing a nomination for the federal bench.  If my belief in the principles of my church is so strong that it will alter my decisions and cause me to interpret the law differently, then I am not qualified for the bench.  In particular, if my religious beliefs cause me to actively seek ways to interpret the law differently, then I am not qualified. This is what activist judges do -- they try to find a way to compress their politics into their administration of the law.  The Supreme Court is incredibly guilty of this...witness the 2000 election.  I don't have much of a problem with the fact that the SC found in favor of Bush.  I have a huge problem with the fact that they split completely along political lines.  It was the most naked abdication of judicial responsibility I have ever seen, and has damaged my view of the SC pretty much irreparably.  Yes, they're only human, but they're supposed to be split on tough questions, not questions that they should have been able to work out. Back to Pryor: This is a guy who will undoubtedly use his powers as a judge to attempt to shift the law's interpretation in a manner which pleases him.  He has already demonstrated through other actions that he favors a stronger role of religion in government and in the judiciary.  Most Americans are pretty wary of such an effort.  It is entirely appropriate to reject him for the cavalier way in which he does this.  Judges are supposed to leave their politics behind them.  We know that they don't.  Pryor certainly won't.  But we can at least try to draw the line somewhere, and keep some of the very worst people out. 4:54:15 PM    comment []

Downloadable Books. Would someone please explain to me why downloadable books on Amazon can actually cost more than ordering a physical book?  For example, Greg Bear's Eon sells as a download for $9.99, and the paperback version of the same book costs (on Amazon) $7.99.  It costs nothing to send me the download.  It probably costs very little print the book, too, but wouldn't you expect it to be limited by the price of the paperback edition?  What's really going on here is that book publishers have never liked electronic formats.  Their profits have the potential of being eroded; the primary reason is that with the internet as a presence and solid electronic delivery channels in place, their utility as middlemen is greatly diminished.  They're cut out, in other words. Obviously they don't want this to happen.  So how do you fight it?  You fight it by proving to the rest of the world that electronic distribution is a medium that doesn't really work.  The evidence you need is a small volume of downloads, so you can say that the volume is insignificant.  From this you can propose that it is simple to conclude that consumers don't really want downloads.  To ensure that volumes stay low, you manipulate the prices of electronic books to be quite high, so that consumers are discouraged.  This is also a hedge policy against future laws, which might set limits on profits that electronic publishers can take from authors.  Of course, as a consumer, I'm not going to pay $9.99 for an electronic version of a book I can buy in physical form for $7.99.  Does this mean that I don't want electronic books?  No.  It just means that they should be reasonably priced.  Authors currently make very tiny sums for each book sown.  This is justified in the physical world because of the expense of promotion, printing, shipping, sales, and so forth.  In the electronic world, most of those costs go away.  And yet, the prices stay roughly the same.  Ditto for the electronic music world, where all these arguments apply equally. Remember, it's a two part strategy.  Make the price of electronic media pretty much the same as physical forms, even though the true cost structure (author to consumer) is dramatically lower.  Then promote the idea that because of minimal usage, consumers don't really want it.   4:27:20 PM    comment []