Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson asserted that the Democrats are working "to achieve the congressional equivalent of the Immaculate Conception - a law without a vote" and that the self-executing rule would allow health care reform "to slip by the House." In fact, the self-executing rule requires a majority vote in order to pass and, as the Post's Ezra Klein has noted, "the effect" of passing it "is not any different than if Congress were to pass" the Senate's health care "bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after."

From Michael Gerson's March 17 Washington Post column:

As of this writing, a president who seems willing to interrupt prime-time programming on the slightest pretext has not scheduled a speech from the Oval Office to make his final health-reform appeal. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is working her parliamentarians overtime to achieve the congressional equivalent of the Immaculate Conception -- a law without a vote. One gets the impression that Democrats would prefer health reform to slip by the House in a procedural maneuver on a Friday night during the NCAA basketball tournament -- which it might.

The most visible Democratic domestic priority of the past 40 years must be smuggled into law, lest too many Americans notice. Politicians claiming the idealism of saints have adopted the tactics of burglars. Victory, if it comes, will seem less like a parade than a heist.

FACT: Bill would not pass without majority vote on self-executing rule

Ezra Klein: "[V]ote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill." In a March 15 blog post, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein explained that the self-executing vote "functions as a vote on the Senate bill" because "the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House 'deems' the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes." Klein wrote:

Here's how that will work: Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House "deems" the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.

The virtue of this, for Pelosi's members, is that they don't actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. The difference is semantic, but the bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill.

It's a circuitous strategy born of necessity. Pelosi doesn't have votes for the Senate bill without the reconciliation package. But the Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation package can be signed into law. That removed Pelosi's favored option of passing the reconciliation fixes before passing the Senate bill. So now the House will vote on reconciliation explicitly and the Senate bill implicitly, which is politically easier, even though the effect is not any different than if Congress were to pass the Senate bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after.

CRS: Self-executing rule requires House's approval. A 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report makes clear that passage of a rule by the House is required for the "self-executing" rule to be adopted. From CRS:

Definition of "Self-Executing" Rule. One of the newer types is called a "self-executing" rule; it embodies a "two-for-one" procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the "self-executed" provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or "boilerplate," language, such as: "The amendment printed in [section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole."

Don Wolfensberger, former chief of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republicans, stated in a 2006 Roll Call column: "Almost every major bill must obtain a special rule, or resolution, from the Rules Committee permitting immediate floor consideration. The resolution also specifies the amount of general debate time and what amendments will be allowed. A special rule also may contain other bells, whistles, gizmos and gadgets. One of these optional attachments is a self-executing provision, which decrees a specified amendment to have been adopted upon the rule's passage. In other words, once the House adopts the special rule it effectively has adopted the amendment before the bill has even been called up for consideration [emphasis added]."

CongressDaily: House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill. NationalJournal.com's CongressDaily reported (subscription required) that the rule would require that the "House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version" for passage. From CongressDaily:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Eduardo Penalver and Sonia Katyal's Property Outlaws: How Squatters, Pirates, and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership has been at the top of my discretionary reading pile for months, now ever since the publisher, Yale, sent me a review copy. Unfortunately, it's been months since I've done any substantial discretionary reading and it'll be months still before I get to do so. So yesterday, I just carved out 45 minutes to give it a good, thorough skim, and while I don't have enough of the book in me to do an actual review, I can tell you that my suspicions were confirmed. Property Outlaws is a great and deep read on how the violation of property rights -- from trespassing to sit-ins to copyright infringement -- have been critical to the evolution of "the law of ownership," establishing the principles that led to anti-discrimination laws (lunch-counter sit-ins), justice for indigenous people (Indian occupation of Alcatraz) and the many shifts and turns in copyright that accommodate speech, privacy, and free expression. Katyal and Penalver go at the subject with academic thoroughness (both are academic lawyers), but without ever being dry. This is an important book -- important enough that I'm putting it back in the stack so that I get a chance to read it cover to cover someday. We've featured Katyal's work here before, Copyright, Technology, and The New Surveillance is a great paper on privacy and copyright enforcement that's a must-read. Property Outlaws: How Squatters, Pirates, and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership...

March 12 was the World Day Against Cyber Censorship and Reporter without Border announced its latest list of “Enemies of the Internet” which points finger at China, among other authoritarian states.

Jason Ng from Kenengba tries to enrich the discussion by outline various aspects of Chinese Internet censorship.

1. Non-transparent censorship

A. Where comes the openness?

First of all, the blogger points out that whenever the Chinese government reacts to the issue of Internet censorship, it would state that “Internet in China is very open” and then support the statement with statistics such as “there are more than 3,800 million internet users in China”. However, the two statements do not carry any logical relation.

B. Unreasonable censorship

Secondly, he points out that main reason why people hate China's Internet censorship is because of its lack of transparency:

我曾ç»åœ¨æ–°æµªå¾@åšå‘布了关于“群众抗è@@番禺建立垃圾焚烧厂”一æ¡ä¿¡æ¯ï¼Œç„¶åŽæˆ‘收到新浪å¾@åšçš„ç@¡ç†å‘˜å‘çš„é‚@件说我这æ¡ä¿¡æ¯å«æœ‰éžæ³•å†…å@¹ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥è¢«åˆ é™¤äº†ã€‚然åŽæˆ‘é—@，这æ¡ä¿¡æ¯è¿å了具体哪æ¡æ³•å¾‹ï¼Œæ–°æµªçš„å@¡æ ¸äººçŒ¿æ²¡æœ‰ç»™æˆ‘回å¤ã€‚åŒæ ·çš„事情也å‘生在中国最大的SNS人人网。

I had once posted a message concerning the protest against the construction of incinerator in Panyu at Sina micro blog. Then I received a message from the webmaster that my message was deleted because of illegal content. I asked which regulation the message had violated, I did not get any answer. Similar incidents also happen in the biggest SNS in China.

网站å@¡æŸ¥äººå‘˜ä¹‹æ‰€ä»¥è¿›è¡Œä¸é€æ˜Žçš„å@¡æŸ¥ï¼Œæ˜¯å› ä¸ºä»–们收到了政府部门ä¸é€æ˜Žçš„规章。…
没有一个é€æ˜Žçš„规章，人们就ä¸èƒ½åŽ»éµå@ˆæ‰€è°“的制度。政府部门高兴的时候å¯ä»¥è¯´“我爱共产党”è¿™å¥è¯æ˜¯è¤’义的，在ä¸é«˜å…´çš„时候å¯ä»¥è¯´ä½ åœ¨è@½åˆºå@ƒã€‚ä½ åªèƒ½æ— å¥ˆåœ°å¯¹ç€å±å¹•å–Šè‰æ³¥é©¬ã€‚

The reason why the web-censors are not transparent in their practice is because of the government's non-transparent regulation…

Once the regulation is in the dark, people cannot act according to the system. The government administration can react to the statement “I love CCP” positively when it is in good mood. When it is in bad mood, it will take it as an irony. And you can only swear “Grass-mud horse” to the computer screen.

C. Google's protest

The blogger believes the reason why Google is unhappy about China's censorship is also due to the problem of transparency:

而Google在中国，æ¯å¤©éƒ½æ”¶åˆ°é€šçŸ¥è¦å±è”½è¿™ä¸ªç½‘ç«™å±è”½é‚£ä¸ªç½‘ç«™ã€å±è”½è¿™ä¸ªå…³é”@è¯å±è”½é‚£ä¸ªå…³é”@è¯ï¼Œè¿™äº›é€šçŸ¥æ˜¯æ²¡æœ‰è§„律å¯å¯»çš„，也没有法例列明。你è¦ç»†é—@法例，得到的回答åªä¼šæ˜¯“ä¾æ³•å±è”½”。

In China, Google.cn receives a lot of notifications concerning the blocking of websites and sensitive terms, and you can't identify any pattern from all these notifications, nor any legal explanation. All they say is “block according to the law”.

2. The Censor machine

The blogger has identified a number of censorship mechanism in China.

A. Self censorship

中国网民由于长期生活在信æ¯å@¡æŸ¥ä¹‹ä¸­ï¼Œä»–们æ„识到很多文字用直接å‘é€çš„æ–¹å¼ä¼šå‘é€å¤±è´¥æˆ–很快被删除，于是他们在å‘布信æ¯ä¹‹å‰å°±å¯¹ä¿¡æ¯åšäº†ä¿@改，è¦ä¹ˆå°†è¾ƒä¸ºæ•æ„Ÿçš„部分替æ¢æˆæ„æ€ç›¸è¿‘çš„è¯è¯­ï¼Œè¦ä¹ˆåˆ æŽ‰äº†è¿™éƒ¨åˆ†å†…å@¹ã€‚

Chinese Internet users are aware of the blocking of sensitive terms. When they publish a message, they would express the term differently or delete the sensitive content.

B. Machine censor

In the case of machine censor, the users have to guess what are the sensitive terms whenever they publish an article. Here is what Internet users will encounter:

1）å‡è@¾ä½ è¾“入了10000字，其中第100ã€101两字是æ•æ„Ÿè¯ã€‚你点击了å‘布。
（2）然åŽä½ å‘现自己åªå‘布了99个字，第100个字和åŽé¢9900个字都ä¸è§äº†ã€‚
（3）你在任何地方都找ä¸åˆ°è¿™ä¸¢å¤±çš„9900个字，你需è¦é‡æ–°æ•²æ‰“一次。
（4）你æ„识到第100ã€101个字是æ•æ„Ÿè¯ï¼ŒäºŽæ˜¯ä½ æ›¿æ¢æˆå…¶å@ƒå­—了，接ç€ä½ é‡æ–°å‘布一次。
（5）然åŽä½ åˆå‘现，å‘布出去åŽåªå‰©ä¸‹200个字，因为第201个字åˆæ˜¯æ•æ„Ÿè¯ã€‚

1. If you have written 10,000 words, in case the number 100 and 101 words are sensitive terms, and you publish it.
2. You will find out that you only manage to publish 99 words and all words from 100-9900 will disappear.
3. You can't recover the 9900 words again and you have to retype them.
4. Then you realize that the number 100 and 101 are sensitive, you change the expression and publish it again.
5. You then find out that you only manage to publish 200 words because the number 201 word is a sensitive term again…

Another machine censor example is the Green Dam:

当你的æµè§ˆå™¨å¼€äº†10多个标签，其中一个有一张肉色比较多的照片时，全部æµè§ˆå™¨è¿›ç¨‹å°±ä¼šè¢«ç»¿å结æŸã€‚或è@¸ä½ åœ¨å…¶ä¸­ä¸€ä¸ªæ ‡ç­¾æ­£åœ¨å·¥ä½œï¼Œä¸å¥½æ„æ€ï¼Œéƒ½æ²¡äº†ã€‚

When you have opened 10 pages in your browser. And then one of the pictures has a bigger portion of flesh color. Voila! All your pages will be closed suddenly. If you are working online in one of the pages, sorry, everything will be gone.

C. Human Flesh Censor

中国很多网站，尤其是门户网站都有一个专门的人工å@¡æŸ¥å›¢é˜Ÿã€‚饭å¦ç”±äºŽæ²¡æœ‰å@¡æŸ¥å›¢é˜Ÿï¼Œ“éžæ³•”ä¿¡æ¯æ³›æ»¥ï¼Œæœ€ç»ˆè¢«æ­»äº¡ã€‚æ@我所知，åƒæ–°æµªè¿™æ ·çš„网站，å@¡æŸ¥äººå‘˜æ˜¯æ•°ä»¥ç™¾è@¡çš„。
一个曾ç»åœ¨è…¾è@¯è´Ÿè´£åšå@¡æŸ¥çš„朋å‹å‘Šè¯‰æˆ‘，æ¯å½“æ•æ„Ÿæ—¥å­ï¼Œæ¯”如两会，他们的工作é‡å°±éžå¸¸å¤§ï¼Œä»–们ä¸ä½†éœ€è¦å@¡æŸ¥è@ºå›ã€åšå@¢ï¼Œå°±è¿žç”¨æˆ·çš„é‚@件他们都è¦éšæœºæŠ½æŸ¥ã€‚在中国，é‚@件ä¸ç@—是éšç§ã€‚
人肉å@¡æŸ¥å›¢é˜Ÿåœ¨åˆ¤æ–­éžæ³•ä¿¡æ¯çš„时候没有一å@šçš„标准，在很多时候，他们åªæ˜¯æ ¹æ@自己或上级临时下å‘的文件去判断一æ¡ä¿¡æ¯æ˜¯å¦è¢«å±è”½ã€‚对于他们æ¥è¯´ï¼Œå@å¯æ€é”™1000æ¡ï¼Œç»å¯¹ä¸èƒ½æ”¾è¿‡1æ¡ã€‚

Many websites, especially portal websites, have a team of censors. The reason why Fanfou was forced to close down is because it did not have a censor team. For websites like Sina, they have more than a hundred staffs working on censorship.

A friend who once worked in Tencent told me that whenever the time was sensitive, such as during the annual National People's Congress, their workload would increase. They had to censor BBS, blog, and randomly users' email. In China, email communication has no privacy.

Human flesh censors do not have standard in their practice. Very often, they judge according to their supervisor's guidelines. And they'd rather delete 1000 than letting 1 sensitive message to surface.

D. The notification team

在中国，大多数网站底部都会有一个备案å·ï¼Œé€šè¿‡è¿™ä¸ªå¤‡æ¡ˆå·ï¼Œæ”¿åºœçš„å@¡æŸ¥äººå‘˜å¯ä»¥å¾ˆæ–¹ä¾¿åœ°è”系到站长。
一般æ¥è¯´ï¼Œå½“网ç@¡å‘现æŸç½‘站上有“éžæ³•”ä¿¡æ¯çš„时候，他们首先会打电è¯ç»™æœåŠ¡å™¨çš„托ç@¡å•†ï¼Œæ‰˜ç@¡å•†å†æ‰“电è¯è”系站长删除所谓的“éžæ³•”ä¿¡æ¯ã€‚

Most websites have a license number so that the government can contact the webmaster whenever they want.

Whenever the Internet control administration finds an “illegal” information online, they would call up the data center and the data center would call up the webmaster to delete the “illegal” message.

E. Red Head document team

有时候，å@¡æŸ¥ä¸ä»…仅是è¦æ±‚网站删掉æŸäº›å†…å@¹ï¼Œè¿˜åŒ…括统一转载æŸäº›ç¨¿ä»¶ã€ç»Ÿä¸€å°†æœç´¢ç»“果指å‘å@˜æ–¹ç½‘站。这ç§é€šçŸ¥ç§°ä¹‹ä¸ºçº¢å¤´æ–‡ä»¶ï¼Œä¸€èˆ¬ç”±ç½‘ç@¡åŠžæˆ–新闻办下å‘。

Sometimes, the Internet censor would not only demand the website to delete content, but also demand them to re-post or direct search result to certain official websites. Such kind of notification is usually called Red Head paper. They are issued either by the Internet control administration or by the government information office.

门户网站æ¯å¤©éƒ½ä¼šæ”¶åˆ°ç½‘ç@¡åŠžä¸‹å‘的通知，这些通知的类型一般包括：
（1）ä¸èƒ½æŠ¥é“什么
（2）应该报é“什么
（3）头æ¡åº”该放什么
（4）哪些新闻需è¦å¼•å¯¼è@¨è@º
（5）哪些æœç´¢å…³é”@è¯åº”该å±è”½æˆ–指å‘指å@šçš„结果
（6）哪些新闻必须统一采用新åŽç½‘ã€äººæ°‘网的稿件

For portal websites they would received notifications from the Internet control administration every day. The notifications are usually about:

1. What cannot be reported
2. What should be reported
3. What should the headline be
4. Which news should be channeled in the discussion
5. Which keywords should be blocked or redirected to a destinate search result
6. Which news story should be limited to the use of the Xinhua and People's Daily news sources

F. Mama Jury

A 15-year-old targeted by anti-gay slurs and threats online can sue the classmate who left them, a California appeals court has ruled, the SF Chronicle reports:

"A state appeals court says a 15-year-old boy whose Web site was flooded with anti-gay slurs and threats can sue a schoolmate who admitted posting a menacing message but described it as a joke. In a 2-1 ruling Monday, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the violent language of the message - threatening to 'rip out your ... heart and feed it to you' and to 'pound your head in with an ice pick' - conveyed a harmful intent that is not protected by the right of free speech. The dissenting justice, Frances Rothschild, said no one who read all the messages posted on the Web site - in which youths tried to outdo the others in outrageous insults - would interpret any of them as a serious threat."

Background: "The plaintiff, identified only as D.C., set up a Web site in 2005 to promote an entertainment career after recording an album and starring in a film. Believing - wrongly, the court said - that he was gay, some fellow students at a Los Angeles high school posted comments that mocked him, feigned sexual interest or threatened violence."

D.C., at the suggestion of police, was taken out of school and the family moved to an unspecified location. The 16-year-old who made the threat claimed that his free speech rights were being threatened.

The case is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

A few weeks back, we were a bit concerned about a judge's decision to force offline a satirical "news story" about a fake giraffe attack at the Global Wildlife Center in Louisiana. Just because GWC was worried that some people might take the story seriously, it doesn't remove the First Amendment rights of the creators of the satirical site. Thankfully, the judge now agrees and has removed the injunction and ordered GWC to pay the legal costs of the site's creators. The judge noted that while the center had some concerns about how the article was viewed, it doesn't change the fact that the content is protected free speech as satire.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

I really love the research that they're doing over at Yale's Haskins Laboratories: instead of studying speech perception and production in terms of faithfully replicating alllll of the sounds we make with our mouths, (like the minute clicks, pops, and hisses of consonants), the team is proposing that all we need to understand speech is to track and re-create a few select resonances of the vocal tract. I like to think of speech production in this context as a series of bottles with varying levels of water in them--the mouth is one bottle that changes pitch resonance when you move it to open it or close it, the nasal cavity another, and so on throughout the vocal tract. It ends up sounding like a bunch of complicated melodies that are then combined into a complex micro-tonal harmony, a.k.a., we're all better at perceiving and making music than we think we are! The examples below break it down into isolated sine-wave patterns that you can combine yourself to build a sentence. What do you think? How easily can you hear words emerge? Tone combinations Play Tone 1 alone | Play Tone 2 alone | Play Tone 3 alone | Play Tones 1 and 2 together Play Tones 1 and 3 together | Play Tones 2 and 3 together If you like this, you can go here for more interactive demonstrations, or check out this great sine-wave-synthesized Robert Frost poem. Thanks to Robert E. Remez, as well as Phillip Rubin and Jennifer Pardo at Haskins Labs for allowing me to embed their work here. Coming up, I'll be writing about a cool ethnographic example of a language that actually uses something like this in practice!...

The Google Public Policy Blog recently posted a summary of a speech by Chief Economist Hal Varian on newspaper economics. Alongside the we-are-not-your-enemy message that Google is hoping newspapers will someday listen to, it contains useful insights on the challenge of succeeding as an established print publication in the digital world. Varian suggests a few potential courses of action, but the real value of the piece is that it highlights the obstacles in a way that can be tackled by experienced insiders—especially marketers and salespeople, which newspapers employ in abundance but often fail to set free on experimental strategies.

One of the first things Varian establishes is the volume and value of online news readers, and then he looks at the difficulties of turning that value into revenue. The numbers may be discouraging for newspapers, but they could also become the basis of several important short- and long-term goals in an online strategy:

"Visitors to online newspaper sites don't spend a lot of time there. The average amount of time looking at online news is about 70 seconds a day, while the average amount of time spent reading the physical newspaper is about 25 minutes a day. Not surprisingly, advertisers are willing to pay more for their share of readers' attention during that 25 minutes of offline reading than during the 70 seconds of online reading. So even though online advertising has grown rapidly in the last five years, it appears that somewhat less than 5% of newspapers' ad revenue comes from their internet editions, according to the most recent Newspaper Association of America data.

There's a reason for the relatively short time readers spend on online news: a disproportionate amount of online news reading occurs during working hours. The good news is that newspapers can now reach readers at work, which was difficult prior to the internet. The bad news is that readers don't have a lot of time to devote to news when they are supposed to be working. Online news reading is predominately a labor time activity while offline news reading is primarily a leisure time activity."

Varian talks about the need to increase leisure involvement with online news, and in the full speech, he lists ways this might be done: leveraging new technologies like smartphones and tablets, developing more engaging formats for journalism (like Google Living Stories, which recently went open source), and creating multimedia experiences.

These are all important ideas, but to some extent, they miss an opportunity by focusing on ways to get people reading at home instead of work: namely, don't at-work readers have value too?

For a long time, newspapers have used "business purchasing influence" as a prominent reader statistic in media kits. But we now live in a world where business purchasing influence is a much more distributed thing, hardly limited to managers and IT folk: employees at every level in every field make use of online services to expedite their work. Web services subvert the top-down model of corporate IT, allowing workers to seek out the tools that work best for them. These services usually have freemium models, with prices that suit small departmental budgets, and since there's no software installation there's no need to involve IT staff.

Think web blockers (plenty of companies still have laughably low email attachment limits). Think Flash-based presentation tools (graphics departments hate PowerPoint). These are bottom-up business services: a few employees get free accounts, a few more get on board, and before you know it a whole department is more than happy to pay a monthly fee for such a useful tool. These are the companies that want to reach people at work, during those 70 seconds they spend reading a news story while wondering how to transfer a 50-megabyte PDF.

There are some other excellent parts of Varian's post, including a look at the goldmine vertical markets which have traditionally sustained newspapers: automotive, travel, home & garden and the like (he oddly fails to mention real estate, which is a biggie). These are the same verticals that sustain Google's search advertising—the problem is that the end market is now specialty sites, not news publications. Though Varian doesn't discuss the possibilities, this is an area where newspapers still have a chance: they should be leveraging their community respect while partnering with specialty purchase sites through advertising and affiliate programs, ensuring that they continue to be an important link in the chain. TechCrunch recently reported on a Forrester Research study that estimates that web-influenced offline sales in the U.S. (purchases where the consumer made their decision online then went to a retail store) are worth nearly a trillion dollars, and news websites should absolutely be a part of that.

It's well worth reading Varian's post in full, but in the end, his core piece of advice is what counts:

"In my view, the best thing that newspapers can do now is experiment, experiment, experiment. There are huge cost savings associated with online news. Roughly 50% of the cost of producing a physical newspaper is in printing and distribution, with only about 15% of total costs being editorial. Newspapers could save a lot of money if the primary access to news was via the internet."

That really is the core of it. Newspapers must experiment with new ways to report the news, new ways to engage their readers and new ways to get advertisers on board, while embracing the fact that their readers are switching to a medium that costs them less. There are over 70-million Americans reading news online—if newspapers can't turn those eyeballs into money, someone else will.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As the Federal Communications Commission hands its National Broadband Plan over to Congress, the cable industry's top trade association has issued a manifesto that looks pretty good, at least on paper. It boils down to seven "consumer principles," says the National Telecommunications and Cable Association, to which cable operators will adhere, "and which we believe could serve as the foundation for Commission and inter-industry efforts."

The principles have a sort of FCC Internet Policy Statement or even FDR Four Freedoms speech feeling to them, but focus on mobility of content, portability of devices, and ease of Internet access. They include the Holy Grail: "1. Consumers should have the option to purchase video devices at retail that can access their multichannel provider's video services without a set-top box supplied by that provider." A right-to-broadband clause: "3. Consumers should have the option to access video content from the Internet through their multichannel provider’s video devices and retail video devices." And a freedom-of-platform commitment: "5. Consumers should have the option to easily and securely move video content between and among devices in their homes."

Read the comments on this post

As the Federal Communications Commission hands its National Broadband Plan over to Congress, the cable industry's top trade association has issued a manifesto that looks pretty good, at least on paper. It boils down to seven "consumer principles," says the National Telecommunications and Cable Association, to which cable operators will adhere, "and which we believe could serve as the foundation for Commission and inter-industry efforts."

The principles have a sort of FCC Internet Policy Statement or even FDR Four Freedoms speech feeling to them, but focus on mobility of content, portability of devices, and ease of Internet access. They include the Holy Grail: "1. Consumers should have the option to purchase video devices at retail that can access their multichannel provider's video services without a set-top box supplied by that provider." A right-to-broadband clause: "3. Consumers should have the option to access video content from the Internet through their multichannel provider’s video devices and retail video devices." And a freedom-of-platform commitment: "5. Consumers should have the option to easily and securely move video content between and among devices in their homes."

Read the comments on this post

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz recently reported that some "Fox journalists" believe that colleague Glenn Beck "uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility." Nevertheless, Fox News' reporters and "news" programs have routinely promoted and echoed Beck on stories such as the 9-12 Project, tea party protests, ACORN and former White House officials Van Jones and Anita Dunn.

Kurtz: Some "Fox journalists" worried Beck "undermines their credibility"

From Kurtz's March 15 Washington Post column:

In just over a year, Glenn Beck's blinding burst of stardom has often seemed to overshadow the rest of Fox News.

And that may not be a good thing for the top-rated cable news channel, as many of its staffers are acutely aware.

With his celebrity fueled by a Time cover story, best-selling books, cheerleading role at protest rallies and steady stream of divisive remarks, Beck is drawing big ratings. But there is a deep split within Fox between those -- led by Chairman Roger Ailes -- who are supportive, and many journalists who are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network.

By calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a "cancer," Beck has achieved a lightning-rod status that is unusual even for the network owned by Rupert Murdoch. And that, in turn, has complicated the channel's efforts to neutralize White House criticism that Fox is not really a news organization. Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.

[...]

Friction between opinionated cable personalities and journalists has also flared occasionally at MSNBC. But Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the failure of last week's interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced a waste of time.

[...]

One thing is beyond debate: Beck provides a strong lead-in for the network's evening lineup. "The significance of Beck to Fox's bottom line cannot be underestimated," says Tyndall, the industry analyst. "Getting an audience that size at 5 p.m. is absolutely unheard of."

But that growth has come at a price, at least for those at Fox who believe that Beck is beginning to define their brand. Glenn Beck is a media phenomenon married to a phenomenally successful network, but away from the cameras, theirs is a troubled relationship.

The New York Times reported on October 11, 2009, that Fox News claims its news hours are objective and defined as "9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays." Those weekday hours include America's Newsroom, Happening Now, America Live, Studio B, Special Report, and The Fox Report. America Live replaced Live Desk in early 2010.

"News" division takes cues from Beck on ACORN tapes

Beck brings ACORN videos to Fox. On the September 9, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Beck previewed an "exclusive" that would air on his program the next day, which he claimed would make "things change a lot for those in power." Beck later aired snippets of a video from James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in which they entered the Baltimore office of ACORN. Beck suggested the video was the "exclusive stuff" that he predicted the media would be "talking about" instead of health care. On September 10, Beck interviewed Giles and credited Andrew Breitbart with starting the story. On September 15, Beck again hosted O'Keefe for a "one-hour special." Beck continued pushing subsequent ACORN videos from O'Keefe and Giles in the following months. Investigations later found significant problems with the ACORN tapes and cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing.

Fox "news" programs follow Beck's lead, seize on ACORN videos. Following Beck's "exclusive" preview, on September 10, 2009, through 7 p.m., Fox News dedicated at least 17 segments to the ACORN video. Fox "news" programs covering the video included: America's Newsroom; Happening Now; Live Desk; and Special Report.

Fox "news" programs hype Beck-promoted San Bernardino ACORN tapes. On September 15 and 16, 2009, Fox "news" programs devoted significant programming to O'Keefe and Giles' video of their interactions with an ACORN worker in San Bernardino, CA, who claimed that she murdered her husband and gave advice on how to run a brothel. The worker stated after the video was released that she hadn't murdered her husband -- which was confirmed by police -- and was attempting to "shock them as much as they were shocking me." Live Desk teased the video, with co-host Martha MacCallum stating: "We can now tell you that you are going to see yet another big development in the ACORN story. Another tape is expected to come out tonight after 5 p.m." -- a reference to Glenn Beck's program. At 5 p.m., Beck devoted a "special program" to the San Bernardino video. Following Beck, Special Report and America's Newsroom ran reports on the video.

Fox News Sunday devoted 18 minutes, over two consecutive broadcasts, to ACORN controversy. In September, Fox News Sunday devoted a total of 18 minutes of programming time on two consecutive broadcasts to covering the ACORN tapes. During his September 20 broadcast, host Chris Wallace conducted an interview with ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to discuss the story. During the September 27 broadcast of the program, Wallace aired a segment on O'Keefe, in which he advanced several of O'Keefe's claims without noting that they are contradicted by readily available evidence and labeled O'Keefe the "Power Player of the Week."

"News" division follows Beck's lead on bogus Dunn controversy

Beck pushed concocted story that Dunn "worships" and "revere[s]" Mao Zedong. Throughout his October 15, 2009, program, Beck claimed that then-White House communications director Anita Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. As evidence, Beck aired a video in which Dunn cited two of her "favorite political philosophers," Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa during a speech to high school graduates. However, Dunn offered no endorsement of Mao's ideology or actions -- rather, she spoke of Mao and Mother Teresa as two of her favorite "political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how good you are internally." Indeed, admiration" for Mao and that President Obama has "surrounded himself with Mao supporters."

Special Report followed Beck's lead in highlighting Dunn's "Mao" comments. On October 19, 2009, Fox News' Special Report aired a truncated clip of Dunn's Mao quote, and Fox News contributor Brit Hume responded: "Well, she also said that this is the two people she turns to most. This doesn't sound like it was a one-off attempt to make a joke and imitate the Republican strategist Lee Atwater."

"News" division follows Beck's campaign against Van Jones

Beck led the charge against Van Jones. Beck repeatedly attacked then-White House green jobs adviser Van Jones. Beck has falsely accused Van Jones of being a "convicted felon," misleadingly stated that Jones' place in the Obama administration "says that the president has an agenda that is radical, revolutionary, and in some cases, Marxist." A September 6, 2009, New York Times article stated that "[c]hief among those keeping the story alive was Glenn Beck, the conservative host of a Fox News Channel program. Mr. Beck began criticizing Mr. Jones in July, first in segments on his syndicated talk radio show and then, on July 23, on his Fox News program, said Christopher Balfe, the president of Mr. Beck's production company."

"News" division picks up Jones "controversy." On September 3, 2009, America's Newsroom, Live Desk, and Special Report ran segments on the "controversy" over Jones. Fox News dispatched at least two reporters, Molly Henneberg and James Rosen, to the Van Jones story. For instance, America's Newsroom's Megyn Kelly said Jones has a "somewhat radical and sometimes racially-charged past," and asked Henneberg if Jones "described himself as a communist." Kelly further wondered how Jones became a "czar." From America's Newsroom:

Live Desk covered Jones' past remarks with Rosen and promoted the results of a non-scientific poll finding that 97 percent of Fox News viewers aren't "satisfied with Van Jones' apology" for past remarks:

On Special Report, host Bret Baier introduced a report by Rosen by stating that there's a "troubling pattern of behavior by one of the president's top advisers [Jones]" and later concluded, "We'll see if the national hoo-rah develops" over Jones.

Van Jones resigns; Beck and Fox "stories" receive credit. On September 6, 2009, Jones resigned, citing that he "cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past." The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim noted that "[b]efore Beck mentioned Jones in the last few weeks on his Fox News television show, Jones remained an obscure figure in the administration. After Beck mentioned him, protesters at town hall meetings made Jones a staple of their complaints." In an October 28, 2009, speech (retrieved from the Congressional Record) on the House floor, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said: "Fox reports the stories that the national media ignore. For example, without Fox News, you might not have heard about the recent ACORN scandal. You might not have heard about the troubling political associations of the President's former green jobs czar, which eventually led to his resignation."

Wallace: It is "certainly the case that Van Jones had a history as a radical, as a self-professed communist." In a panel discussion about Jones' resignation on the September 6, 2009, edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace stated that "it certainly is the case that Van Jones had a history as a radical, as a self-professed communist, and also, the fact that is -- that he signed a 2004 petition suggesting that there be an investigation of whether or not the government had a role in 9/11."

News division continues to track Jones post-resignation. Fox News' Special Report has continued to discuss Van Jones despite his White House resignation. Since Jones' resignation, according to Nexis, Special Report has mentioned Van Jones on February 25, February 24, October 19, October 6, September 28, September 16, and September 10.

"News" division promotes Beck's 9-12 special and rally

Beck started conservative 9-12 Project, whose members helped organize 9-12 protests. On March 13, 2009, during his "You Are Not Alone" special, Beck announced the launch of his 9-12 Project, whose members helped organize and turn out participants to a protest on September 12, 2009. Beck routinely implored his audience to attend the Washington, D.C. rally on his Fox News show. Beck then aired a special edition of his television show live from 1 to 3 p.m. ET on Fox News on September 12.

Happening Now promotes Beck's original 9-12 Project special. On March 13, 2009, Happening Now hosted Beck to promote his special. From Happening Now:

Live Desk promotes Beck's original special as "the place to be." On the March 13, 2009, edition of Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher started a countdown to Beck's special and said Beck's show is "gathering steam across the country." Co-host Martha MacCallum added that Beck's special is "the place to be this Friday night." Gallagher said that Beck's first principle is "America is good and we seemed to have forgotten that." Gallagher interviewed Beck live outside Fox News' offices while he and Fox News graphics repeatedly promoted the special:

Wallace: "I'm a big Glenn Beck fan." On the March 13, 2009, edition of Fox News' Studio B, while discussing Beck's special, Wallace said he sensed that Fox News host Shepard Smith was "begrudging" Glenn Beck and that he himself is a "big Glenn Beck fan" and is "on the Glenn Beck bandwagon."

Fox News heavily promoted the Beck-fueled 9-12 rally. Fox News heavily promoted the 9-12 Tea Party rally and the Tea Party Express tour, whose last stop was on September 12 in Washington. For instance, during the August 23, 2009, edition of America's News HQ, host and reporter Shannon Bream said, "We want to let folks know" the Tea Party Express' schedule so "they can be a part" of the events. And on August 28, 2009, Fox News dispatched reporters Griff Jenkins and William La Jeunesse to the Tea Party Express kickoff in Sacramento, California. Jenkins also reported from the 9-12 rally for Beck's special; a Fox News producer was caught encouraging the crowd to cheer during Jenkins' report.

"News" division heavily promotes April 15 Tea Parties -- featuring Glenn Beck

Beck promotes, hosts a "FNC Tax Day" Tea Party. While discussing the April 15, 2009, Tea Party protests on his April 6, 2009, program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." In the lead-up to April 15, Beck repeatedly promoted the tea parties and urged viewers to attend them.

Like Beck, Fox "news" programs repeatedly urged attendance at tea parties. In the lead-up to the April 15, 2009, tea parties, Fox's "news" programs and anchors frequently aired segments publicizing and encouraging viewers to get involved with the protests. For instance, Special Report host Baier noted the URL of TaxDayTeaParty.com and stated that the protests have been "largely ignored by the mainstream media," while America's Newsroom frequently hosted tea party organizers and posted on-screen organizing information, such as protest dates and locations. Host Bill Hemmer also repeatedly directed viewers to the show's section on the Fox News website, which posted a list of tea party protests. The following are some of the graphics America's Newsroom aired to promote the April 15 tea parties:

Hemmer promotes Beck's appearance at the Alamo. While guest-hosting the April 12, 2009, edition of Fox News Watch, news anchor Hemmer promoted Beck's appearance at the Alamo tea party, stating:

HEMMER: While the mainstream is ignoring the tea party movement, here at the Fox News Channel, we're gearing up to bring you special coverage of the events all across the country. Sean Hannity is in Atlanta. Glenn Beck is at the Alamo. Where else would he be? San Antonio. Neil Cavuto is live in Sacramento and Greta is in Washington, D.C.

Can't get to a tea party? Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party. You can check it out on the site for the location of a tea party in your area. Again, that is Wednesday, the 15th of April.

A reader wrote to me with an experience that he says vexed him. The relevant portion of his email is excerpted below (with his permission via email):

…during a talk with a liberal friend of mine, regarding the MF Hussain episode…friend talked on the lines of what liberals usually speak i.e kamasutra khajuraho…But…his explanation that Brahma marrying his creation (daughter) Saraswati amounted to incest which according to him means Hinduism sanctifies such relationships…made me quite uncomfortable and disturbed.

This kind of “analysis” typically stems from the Wendy Doniger school of thought, which confounds the symbolic with the literal and sees sex and perversion everywhere in Sanatana Dharma. There’s a Sanskrit proverb for this phenomenon: yad bhaavam tad bhavati (broadly, you perceive according to your mental makeup).

Different Puranas have different versions of how Brahma was born but the most popular one is that he was born out of the lotus that grew from Vishnu’s navel (hence his name, Nabhija). After he was born, he created a female form, Shatarupa, who then became Saraswathi. Essentially, he fell in love with his own creation and ended up marrying her. This is the story very briefly.

If you create something–a painting, a poem, a tune–it becomes yours and many people use colourful phrases to describe their creation: “labour of my love,” “my baby,” “manifestation of my creativity,” and so on. However, we don’t hear anybody expressing a desire to feed their creations with milk and food. Neither do they nurture any hallucinations that their painting will crawl after three months. However, if someone starts talking about taking the tune that they composed in Abheri to the doctor for giving it polio drops, you know what number to call. In other words, when you describe your artistic creation as your baby, it is implied that you are only talking figuratively, not literally.

This background is essential to understand Brahma’s supposedly-incestuous marriage to Saraswathi.

So, we have established/accepted that Brahma is the God of Creation. But is that all there is to it? The answer is yes if you take the marriage literally, physically as in a marriage between a man and a woman. But if it’s nothing more than a marriage between a man and a woman, why was Brahma so attracted to his own daughter? Being Creator, how difficult was it to create a wife for himself? And this question is what prompts us to look at the symbolism behind the supposedly incestuous marriage.

As Creator, Brahma brought to life Existence itself. Which logically means he thought of creating the physical world that we perceive through our sense organs and our mind. If you talk about the physical world of shapes and forms you need to give it a definition, or a name or label. This is known as the world of Rupa (Form/Shape) and Nama (Name), both inseparable from each other. In plain language, you look at a tree and your mind can’t be satisfied unless it finds a word (nama) to define it clearly so that when you say “tree” you know exactly what it is without having to actually look at it with your eyes. And this process of defining the physical world lies in the realm of thought. Thought then is expressed through speech.

What follows from this is rather simple. The shapes and forms that Brahma gave to his thoughts became the physical world. When he expressed it in language, it became speech. Which is Saraswathi, his daughter. And which is perfectly in line with Saraswathi worshipped as the Goddess of Speech (or vaak), language, and learning. However, we’re yet to hear of a word which has no meaning at all. As someone said, every word is an idea–it represents something: a thought, an object, anything. In other words, a word cannot be divorced from its meaning. Even in case of names of people–if I say out the name of a person, it conjures up an image or some sort of memory or association related to that person. This meaning is again Saraswathi, now donning the role of Brahma’s wife. This is what Kalidasa says in the opening verse of his grand Raghuvamsha:

Vaagarthaviva Sampruktau Vaagartha pratipattaye|
Jagatah Pitarau Vande Parvati Parameshwaru||

Just as a word and its meaning are inseparable
I bow to the Shiva and Parvati, the parents of this world.

As the meaning of the word, Saraswathi is Brahma’s wife just like a wife who stays with her husband for life through good and bad times. This symbolism is pretty much true of all Gods and their wives. As the wife of Vishnu the Preserver of the world, Lakshmi is the Goddess of Wealth. You cannot hope to attain peace and order in the world without prosperity.

This then is the symbolism behind Saraswathi as both Brahma’s daughter and wife. Yet, for millions of Hindus over thousands of years, Brahma and Saraswathi have continued to remain worship-worthy. The last thought to a practising Hindu about Saraswathi is her so-called “incestuous marriage” to Brahma. There’s a reason symbols and myths in Hinduism have an enduring quality about them: they make highly abstract philosophies and concepts readily accessible to us by making them part of our daily life. It’s easier telling a child about the importance of learning by narrating the importance of worshipping Saraswathi than it is to threaten it to “study or else!” Equally, it is easier to explain abstract concepts of thought, words and meanings to a layman using this story than conduct an academic session/seminar. Even without this complexity, the story of Brahma and Saraswathi still makes for a fascinating and interesting narration.

However, in this age of an absurd insistence on Reality-Everything, we’re forced to look for literal meanings in places where finding literal meanings is both irrelevant and absurd. If you do that, you’ll be forced to read literal meanings even in Atlas’ tale of bearing the weight of the Heavens on his back. You can’t be selective in choosing literal meanings for some, and symoblic meanings for other mythological tales. Those who readily accept the symbolism, not literalism, of the Trinity as symbols of creation, preservation, and destruction suddenly look at the literal meaning in the marriage of Brahma and Saraswathi. This is typically why Hindus are upset with the likes of Wendy Doniger et al, who read literal meanings because it fits the conclusion they want to derive.

On a related note, there’s a deeper reason why Hindus are outraged by M.F Hussain’s pictures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Hindu art, according to Ananda Coomaraswamy, moves from the impersonal to the personal. For example, if I draw a painting of a mike and say this picture is an artistic representation of the triumph of technology to improve the quality of our lives, it draws absolutely no outrage. On the other hand, if I caption the same picture with something like, this is the penis of my friend Robert’s father, and shows the virile nature of the force behind all creation, what’s your guess how Robert will respond? Given the deeply personal nature of our mythology, Saraswathi and Sita are as much–if not more–our family members as our parents and siblings are: in other words, they are not merely paintings of just any nude female form. It is this that upsets Hindus not mention the way Hussain perverts these mythological tales to create his trashy “art.” And this is also why Hindus aren’t upset with Khajuraho sculptures or for that matter any random nude pictures.

I suppose this adequately puts my anguished reader at peace.

Tags: Commentary, Creativity, Hindu Mythology, Hinduism, India, Indian Art, Indian Mythology, Indian Philosophy, Indian Politics, Khajuraho, Literal and Symbolic, M F Hussain, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture