Thursday, December 6, 2012

More Thoughts on the Election and the GOP

Just a couple articles that I came across on Instapundit outlining some issues for conservatives. First, it is no help at all that the GOP is in bed with the very mass media companies and donors that vilify the Republicans and fund the Democrats. From "GOP sides with Mickey Mouse on copyright reform":
On the afternoon of Friday, Nov. 16, the Republican Study Committee -- the conservative caucus in the House -- published a paper examining the problems with current copyright law. The paper suggested the current copyright regime is "corporate welfare that hurts innovation and hurts the consumer. It is a system that picks winners and losers, and the losers are new industries that could generate new wealth and add value."

The paper proposed lighter punishments for copyright infringements and suggested shorter terms for copyrights. (Under current law, written works are under copyright for 75 years after the author's death.)

This paper upset some powerful interests. By Saturday afternoon, the RSC had pulled the memo from its website and officially retracted it. The reason, according to two Republicans within the RSC: angry objections from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, whose district abuts Nashville, Tenn. In winning a fifth term earlier in the month, Blackburn received more money from the music industry than any other Republican congressional candidate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Blackburn's office did not return calls seeking comment.

Lobbyists for the music and movie industries also called the RSC to express disapproval, according to Republicans involved.

The staffer who wrote the memo, an ambitious 24-year-old named Derek Khanna, was fired -- even before the RSC had decided on other staffing changes for the upcoming Congress. The copyright memo was a main reason.
 The article goes on to document how close certain powerful Republicans are to the entertainment industry. These Congress-criters are not doing the Republican party any favors. Rather, they have taught the entertainment industry that there are no repercussions for being a propaganda arm of the DNC. What really needs to be done is serious copyright reform, and, as Glenn Reynolds suggests, eliminating the tax breaks enjoyed by the media companies and entertainers.

The second piece is a column authored by Ann Coulter that digs deeper into the demographics of the young voters won over by Obama. As several articles I've linked to have discussed, Obama overwhelmingly won over young voters. However, Ms. Coulter notes that it goes a little deeper than just free birth control:
On closer examination, it turns out that young voters, aged 18-29, overwhelmingly supported Romney. But only the white ones.

According to Pew Research, 54 percent of white voters under 30 voted for Romney and only 41 percent for Obama. That’s the same percentage Reagan got from the entire white population in 1980. Even the Lena Dunham demographic — white women under 30 — slightly favored Romney.

Reagan got just 43 percent of young voters in 1980 — and that was when whites were 88 percent of the electorate. Only 58 percent of today’s under-30 vote is white and it’s shrinking daily.

What the youth vote shows is not that young people are nitwits who deserve lives of misery and joblessness, as I had previously believed, but that America is hitting the tipping point on our immigration policy.

. . . Whites are 76 percent of the electorate over the age of 30 and only 58 percent of the electorate under 30. Obama won the “youth vote” because it is the knife’s edge of a demographic shift, not because he offered the kids free tuition and contraception (which they don’t need because it’s hard to have sex when you’re living with your parents at 27).

In 1980, Hispanics were only 2 percent of the population, and they tended to be educated, skilled workers who got married, raised their children in two-parent families and sent their kids to college before they, too, got married and had kids. (In that order.)

That profile has nothing to do with recent Hispanic immigrants, who — because of phony “family reunification” rules — are the poorest of the world’s poor.

More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate. As Heather MacDonald has shown, the birthrate of Hispanic women is twice that of the rest of the population, and their unwed birthrate is one and a half times that of blacks.

That’s a lot of government dependents coming down the pike. No amount of “reaching out” to the Hispanic community, effective “messaging” or Reagan’s “optimism” is going to turn Mexico’s underclass into Republicans.


  1. Does this exceptionally long copyright term meet the Constitutional objective of "securing for limited Times to Authors... the exclusive Right to their... Writings?" Is 75 years after the author's death or 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication for corporate works really a "limited Time[]?" This most recent copyright extension act was pejoratively known as the Micky Mouse Copyright Extension Act, since the Disney corporation was a major backer.

    Add to this the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which gives the entertainment industry a big stick to use against people who want to use a copyrighted work outside the limited scope intended by the copyright holder (e.g. ripping a DVD so it can be watched on a tablet computer), which eviscerates the "fair use" concept.

    Copyright infringement has both criminal and civil penalties.

    In comparison, patents last 20 years (30 years for drug patents). The patent holder's recourse is limited to civil suits against the alleged infringer and complaints to the US International Trade Commission to block imports of infringing goods.

    The copyright term is indeed too long and should be reduced, and the punitive measures being used by various media companies against individuals should be outlawed.

    Hmmm... come to think of it, maybe Republicans could win more youth votes of all races if they pushed for a reduction in copyright terms and elimination of the abusive provisions of copyright law used by the media giants against individuals.

    1. Glenn Reynolds had noted this issue quite a bit. See You may also want to see this 2002 op-ed by John Bloom that Reynolds linked to recently. See