Last Monday (Nov 21, 2005) began like most other days in the small towns and villages of northern Israel. Just before 3:00, however, the afternoon stillness was broken by the sound of mortar and rocket fire flying over the Lebanese border. Israeli authorities estimate that over 500 shells and rockets were fired in five hours, injuring twelve people. The Israeli army returned fire and the air force chased Hezbollah firing crews in southern Lebanon, killing 12. In response, Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, issued a statement "deploring in the strongest terms the exchange of fire across the Blue Line... which resulted in the reported deaths of several Hezbollah fighters and an unconfirmed number of wounded on both sides."

This absurd news snippet could only have come from the Middle East, where expectations of violence and chaos are seemingly commonplace. Had terrorists fired 500 shells and rockets over the Southern California border from Mexico into San Diego, one would expect the response of the US military to be somewhat less restrained. The public would erupt into a righteous uproar over the inability of the Mexican authorities to restrain the terrorists in their midst's as well as with the US authorities about their failure to protect US citizens from such wanton danger. Any statement from the UN Secretary General would certainly not deplore "the exchange of fire" on "both sides." Who, in their right mind, would compare cold, calculated acts of terror and provocation, to law enforcement trying to protect against such acts?

The Hezbollah (Arabic for "party of God"), was established in the early 1980's among Lebanon's Shiite population by Iran's revolutionary guards as part of their program to export Iran's brand of Islamic revolution. Listed on the United States Terrorist Watch List, Hezbollah is a well armed militia that controls Southern Lebanon. It acts outside the authority of the Lebanese army, or parliament, taking its orders from the enigmatic Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, their fundamentalist Islamic spiritual leader. Following his group's cross-border attack against Israel on Monday, Nasrallah called on his men to kidnap Israeli soldiers, adding "It is not a crime," rather "It is our right and duty!"

Following the 1982 "Peace in the Galilee" war, Israel occupied a small strip of Southern Lebanon between 3 and 12 miles deep in order to protect against cross-border shelling. Hezbollah's founding aim and public goal was to oust Israel from Southern Lebanon. In May of 2000, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Southern Lebanon under UN auspices. The UN then called on Lebanon to extend its authority into the Southern areas vacated by Israel and disarm Hezbollah. Lebanon did no such thing and Hezbollah quickly changed their stated aim and vowed to liberate "Sheba Farms" a small square of land that was once under Syrian control and never a part of Lebanon. This goal, like the first, was merely public relations. Hezbollah spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin soon said "If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from."

The rare English admission of Hezbollah's actual goal, the destruction of Israel and founding of an Islamic state in its stead, is widely available in Arabic. Hizballah actually runs television and radio stations out of Southern Lebanon constantly encouraging their listeners to "martyr themselves against Israel." Even their children's cartoons encourage suicide bombings and glorify dying for "the cause."

When Kofi Annan, and so many others issue statements deploring "the exchange of fire " or decrying violence on "both sides," they are unwittingly creating a "moral equivalence" between a terrorist organization and a country trying to enforce Democratic laws and protect its citizens. Just as it would be absurd to report about the "flare up of violence on both sides" when police use force to stop street gangs from murdering Americans in urban warfare, so it is absurd to create an equivalence between Hezbollah's violation of a sovereign border to kidnap or kill innocent Israelis. There is no moral equivalence between terror and law enforcement. To create such an equivalence would be to legitimize terror and thereby encourage its use as an acceptable practice.

If you fire lethal rockets and mortars at your neighbor, you need to be stopped -- period. Responding to such an attack is not a "cycle of violence" or any other euphemism or obfuscation; it is the basic responsibility of government. Kofi Annan should issue a statement condemning the failure of the Lebanese government to bring South Lebanon under control and remove extra-governmental militias from their country. While armed groups exist that are not under the authority of a sovereign government, that government is hardly sovereign.

Suppose you opened a file on your computer that caused all your friends to receive a prank e-mail from you that in turn caused their computers to do the same. Now suppose you played your latest favorite CD and from that moment your computer started to run slower and stopped you from using some of your software. Would you be upset if either of these things happened to you? For that matter, which do you consider worse? According to the law in the United States, only one of these is considered a crime.

In 1999 a man by the name of David L. Smith in New Jersey wrote a "worm," or program that unknowingly sits on your computer and causes your software to do things that you do not intend. This worm quickly spread across the Internet causing service interruptions world-wide and become known as "Melissa." Mr. Smith was eventually caught, fined, and sentenced to prison for writing and spreading the Melissa virus. Anti-virus companies quickly came out with software that could find this worm on your computer and remove the "mal-ware" (short for malicious software).

Recently, in 2005 another mal-ware program began being identified for hiding itself deep within your computer and wreaking havoc. Specifically, interrupting the proper operation of certain software you may be running, taking up your memory resources, even sending electronic information back to its home server about things you may be doing on your computer. You might think that the author of this software would similarly be hunted, caught, and sent to prison. You'd be wrong. The author of this latest "mal-ware" is none other than Sony.

Why is the home entertainment company and consumer electronics powerhouse now making viruses instead of Walk-men? The answer lies in the industry's anti-piracy efforts and the push towards Digital Rights Management or DRM. Sony does not only produce electronic players and gadgets, it also owns a huge music label and library as well as its own movie studio. The company is understandably interested in protecting its substantial investments in content creation and would like to discourage the unauthorized copying of that content.

The post-industrial modern American economy is largely based on the creativity -- or knowledge -- of its highly educated work force. It is this knowledge economy that gives us an edge over developing countries that can use cheap labor to produce goods. Protecting knowledge products, whether they are films, music, or microchips is therefore essential for our economy to operate. Though Sony is a Japanese company, any "high-tech" organization will find itself with similar problems. To deal with this, modern economies have laws to protect copyrights, trademarks, and inventions through patents.

So why are content producers now targeting viruses at their consumers? In 1984, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. was decided by the US Supreme Court in a landmark ruling that became known as the "Betamax case." Universal sued Sony claiming that the invention of its Betamax VCR, which allowed users to copy content from television at will, infringed its copyright of that content. The court ruled that consumers have a right to "fair use" of content (as long as it was not being reused for commercial gain) and can make copies for personal use. Ironically, it is the same Sony corporation that is now trying to stop fair use and make it impossible for users to make personal copies. Could it be that now that Sony is in the studio business itself, it no longer likes the same rules that allowed it to innovate new products in the 1980's?

In the 20 years since "Betamax" there has been something of a tug-o-war between innovative new technology companies and content producers. Products such as the CD and DVD burner have been challenged, as have Peer to Peer technologies and MP3 players. Few would argue that these technologies have not proven beneficial to consumers; however they have also made it easier to copy and disseminate copyrighted content. The content industry's answer to this increasingly takes the form of DRM. Digital Rights Management is now a part of much of the software we use. It can allow Apple to restrict how you copy and play your iTunes music. It can also cause your Windows operating system to stop working when you change a part in your computer.

So where does one draw the line between legitimate copyright enforcement and fair-use? The problem with many DRM software packages is that they not only decide who can play what, they often also decide on what machine you can play it. They can allow you to play music you purchased on your PC, but stop you from playing it on your laptop. No longer can you back up your favorite game so that you can still play after your 2 year old chews on the CD.

Fair use vs. copyright has always swung like a pendulum, back and forth between the rights of consumers and the needs of corporations. Just like unfettered copying would be detrimental to our modern knowledge economy, so too would excessive rights management stifle innovation. Perhaps the pendulum has now swung back too far towards copyright holders if research and development is producing new viruses rather than new walk-men?

Since the time of this last writing, one week ago, the proposition campaigns in California have gone into overdrive.  Whether all this hype and expenditure translate into numbers of ballots cast remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain:  Come Tuesday, November 8th 2005, the political landscape in California could either be substantially changed, or the drive for "reform" could be put back immeasurably.  I strongly support a "Yes" vote on the governor's propositions 74, 75, 76, and 77 and a "No" vote on literally everything else. 

Prop. 77 - Although the proposition to reapportion California's electoral districts by a panel of non-partisan retired judges was discussed last week, the major point of the opposition seems to have changed substantially during that time.  It could not be said strongly enough that if one thinks that they can get even a rudimentary understanding of an issue from a 60 second television spot, they are sorely mistaken.  In the last week or so, a new "point" against 77 seems to have gained traction on the airwaves.  Basically, the proposition's opponents have turned to racial politics to try to divide the issue further.  They claim that if 77 passes, minority voting power will be strongly curtailed.  They hint, not very subtly, that most retired judges are white males and they are likely to strip minorities of their hard-won power.  I ask the following question:  "What does reapportionment have to do at all with racial politics?"  Why not get rid of the non-partisan panel of judges and reapportion using a non-partisan pattern of geometrical shapes?  Political districts are meant to allow those living in them to vote representatives that best represent their beliefs.  Designing oddly shaped districts to enclose certain minorities is just as big an abuse of redistricting as designing oddly shaped districts to exclude minorities.  The racial argument is so far besides the point as to almost be absurd.  The opposition has very much made the point for 77:  It's high time to take apportionment power away from partisan politicians (of both sides).

Prop. 76 - Perhaps the least understood of the Governor's 4 major reforms, proposition 76 will force the state government to take a running average of the last 3 year's tax revenue and either grow or curtail state spending by the same amount.  It is meant to stop the practice of deficit spending year after year in the state budget.  By law, the state is prohibited from spending more than it makes already, but in practice a number of accounting tricks and borrowing have been used to spend far more than state coffers take in.  One very real argument against this proposition is that limiting spending by statute can seriously harm government's ability to deal with unforeseen issues.  Although the proposition does make exceptions for natural disasters, it is not too difficult to imagine that these limits could cause some problems down the road.  Unfortunately, this very rational argument has scarcely been made by opponents to 76 (most notably the teacher's union).  The biggest claim against the proposition is that it will take billions of dollars away from California schools.  While these claims are rather suspect, it still doesn't change the basic economics of the budget:  How can we continually spend more money than we have?  Whether or not the proposition will force cuts to any groups' favorite budget, the state clearly needs to balance its books sooner or later.  Unfortunately California's legislators have been unable or unwilling to do so, making proposition 76 necessary.

Prop. 75 - The most highly contested proposition on the ballot, 75 is rather straightforward:  "Should public employee unions be forced to ask their membership, in advance, for permission to use their money in political campaigns?"  Almost begging the question of why this proposition is necessary, the California's teacher's union has spent the rough equivalent of 5 years worth of dues from the union's members to defeat it.  This same union spent lavishly to keep the former governor Grey Davis in office and supports almost exclusively Democratic candidates.  In this same election, however, California teachers actually voted 54% in favor of electing Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican candidate.  That means that 54% of the union's membership had their dues money taken away from them to support a candidate that they disagreed with!  The union believes that 75 will cripple their ability to get things done in Sacramento, and they are probably right.  The question most Californians should be asking however is:  "Should the same unions who are paid out of the public treasury be allowed to exert disproportionate influence on those who control that treasury?"  This issue has nothing to do with education and everything to do with who has control over the public's finances. 

Prop 74 - Yet another issue that has caused the teacher's union to become bitter enemies of Governor Schwarzenegger, proposition 74 will increase the number of years required to gain tenure in California schools from 2 years to 5 years.  The teacher's union likes to make it seem like they are being picked on by the Governor, however they have failed to make any convincing arguments as to why it is unfair to ask a teacher to work for 5 years before being all but guaranteed a lifetime job?  Tenure rules don't apply to virtually any other profession besides teaching and virtually no one else -- excepting perhaps the legislators in Sacramento -- are currently all but guaranteed a job for life.  It is easy to see why a teacher would be against this proposition, but it is very difficult to see why anyone else would be?