Musicians. Public opinions? Compensation? FAIL.

Okay.  So I’m sitting here drinking my noontime coffee, browsing the mainstream news and debating on what to have for lunch.  I came across an article from the good ol’ AP that awakened the sleeping blogger in me.  To read that article, it’s here:  

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090610/radio_artist_090610/20090610?hub=Entertainment

In a nutshell:

Which top-selling artist purportedly had his new single cut from some U.S. radio stations playlists in retaliation for supporting royalties for musicians?

No one involved will name the recording artist but his no-play treatment by several radio stations is alleged in a complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission and obtained by The Associated Press. It claims recording artists are being threatened and intimidated.

A large part of the “intimidation” in the music industry against artists having their own opinions about things goes to a simple (in the U.S.) First Amendment right.  Radio stations have the right NOT to play a single no matter how popular it is.  We all remember the Dixie Chicks, right?  They had an opinion about George W. Bush, and the next thing we know, country and western radio stations in the United States are banning all airplay of Dixie Chick’s music, presumably in an effort to injure their record sales.  How dare they have a negative opinion of the President.  So, the DJs are allowed to have an opinion and manipulate what the public hears if it doesn’t follow what they believe in.  But, it didn’t hurt the Chick’s popularity, did it?  Their manager was probably on the phone with comments like “You can’t buy this kind of publicity.”

In that light, it makes perfect sense that none of the parties involved in this particular case are willing to name the person or band who is being opinion-banned from radio this time.  Might get sued, you know.

In the filing, the musicFIRST Coalition says the top-selling artist — there are hints it could be U2 frontman Bono — recently released a new album and spoke during April in support of an effort to require radio stations to pay musicians royalties similar to those paid to songwriters.

Soon after, it said, “several stations within a major radio broadcast group notified the artist’s label that they would no longer play his single on the air.

Could it be Bono?  Who is it?  Who dares to claim equality for musicians and songwriters across the board in terms of royalties owed by radio stations? 

I find it interesting that, rather than publish facts to the contrary saying “We pay this much per year in publishing royalties, and it would cost us this much more”, they simply try to silence the artist period.  Hit him in his wallet, where it counts.  It is still so much easier to silence someone with an opinion than provide a fact-based counter on which we’ll be able to judge whether it’s right or wrong.

Let’s have a couple reality checks here.  First of all, someone who writes a song usually has a publishing company, or at least does it themselves.  If they have any waves lapping at the industry, they are signed to SOCAN (in Canada), or either ASCAP or BMI in the U.S.  These organizations exist to collect royalties on songs for songwriters.  If I want to do a cover version of a song, I apply to these organizations and pay whatever royalty is applied to the songwriter (not necessarily the original musician who performed the song) for the right to record the song.  Radio stations generally pay a blanket license fee to these organizations in order to compensate the artist.  This allows them to avoid having to account for every single song they play in a 24 hour period.  You played U2’s latest single 7 times today, and you played someone else’s track once.  Doesn’t matter, the blanket license shall cover all.

According to ASCAP’s website, in 2007 the statuatory mechanical royalty payable per composition is 9.1 cents.  That’s all, folks.  9.1 cents.  ASCAP says:

This statutory mechanical rate represents the songwriter/music publishing royalties payable for songs contained on all physical audio recordings which are made and distributed from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 regardless of the date of the mechanical license or the date that the particular recording was initially released.

So, the math is simple.  Every time a $15 CD of yours gets sold, the record label gets to pay out $9.10 in royalties.  This gets paid to the songwriter and NOT the musician.  I could write one song for U2, and every time a CD of theirs gets sold, I’ll get 9.1 cents out of the deal.  U2, being astoundingly popular, will probably take home a lot more money off this deal than I will.  But, there’s more:

This royalty rate applies unless the music publisher and songwriter have agreed to a lesser rate in the mechanical license or controlled composition clause of the recording artist agreement (e.g., 75% statutory).

Here comes that little music industry devil:  the controlled composition clause.  With this tricky bastard in my contract, my record label can say “Okay.  You really want to record Joe Songwriter’s song?  We don’t like it.  It’s not a radio-friendly unit shifter.  So, according to the contract, you’ll take half a rate on that song.”  So, the poor songwriter who has a really good song for me will only collect half of 9.1 cents per unit sold, because the contract says if the label doesn’t like it, they get to pay discount prices for it.  Plus, if the songwriter signed his publishing rights to the record label, he walks away with whatever sum, and if that song does in fact become a radio hit, well, that’s it.  None of that revenue will ever see the songwriter’s pocket.

There’s the obvious two-sided coin here that I’ve talked about before.  A massively popular group like U2 can write, or pick any song they want.  Throw the U2 name on it, and it could be a guaranteed seller.  U2 is going to walk away with a good chunk of change.  I’m still getting 9.1 cents per CD sold.  This changes with a new artist, which is where you’re a lot more likely to see controlled composition clauses.  We know that a new artist is billed on his royalty statement for everything from that limo-lunch meeting with the A&R representative to the flowers she got backstage after a performance, to promotional costs….and in a lot of cases, an artist will hear something like “Congratulations!  Your album just sold a million copies!  You owe your label $500,000!”  What?  Well, after management, label and attorney take their cut off the artist’s take-in off the top….so there’s a lot less money left over, but we do have to remember that the CD manufacturing plant, the cover artist, all these people have to get paid….and then the artist.  By the time we get to him, he owes owes owes.  But, the songwriter may still get paid whatever percentage of statuatory rate is in his contract.  If it’s the artist who wrote the song…..well, might as well send that back to the label, because you still owe.

Now that we have this information under our belts, let us not forget that the record labels also indulge in “payola”, meaning that there could be a kickback for KRUD Radio if they’ll put song X on heavy rotation, and, well, we’ll pay you to keep song Y off your station as well.  This was huge in the 80’s–in fact, an organization set themselves up in Mafia style to make good money off of it.  It’s watered down to “We’ll give you free tickets to artist Y’s concert if you’ll play artist Z’s more radio friendly hit instead”  in most cases, but it’s still there.

Now, do I feel that musicians should be paid every time their song is played on the radio?  Well, for the debut-album “new kid on the block” artist, it might help to offset some of the debt he/she incurs with the label, but it will more than likely wind up a zero-sum game.  For a well known artist, it’ll simply mean more money in their pockets.  This means that it doesn’t really even the playing field for artists across the board.

I have to be fair to radio stations as well.  In the age where music is freely downloadable (unless you go through something like iTunes), information and public opinion on a record is widely available on the Internet and anyone can set up their own Internet radio station to broadcast goodness knows what, radio is struggling to stay alive.  Many have gone to automated DJs, at least during certain hours, because advertising dollars are getting pinched a little bit more, and a little bit more.  So, I can understand when they’re balking at doubling that blanket licensing fee so that the guy behind the guitar gets paid as well.  This goes against the idea that radio is really simply a promotional vehicle.  Record label sends radio station a free promotional CD of established and up-and-coming artists.  DJ plays it.  I hear it, and go “Wow!  What a phenomenal song….really touches my heart.  *sniffle*”  So, I go out and spend $15 on the CD.  Bingo.  In an ideal world, Radio Station did it’s job, Artist gets paid, and Songwriter gets paid the stat rate plus whatever he gets out of the blanket licensing fee.  The radio station generally makes its money off of commercial advertising dollars, so adding another fee really would damage a media format that is already struggling to survive in a high-tech ocean.

What I strongly disagree with, though, is that radio stations feel that in order to combat this menace, they feel the need to silence an artist entirely, or in another case:

Before an interview, an artist was pressured by a Texas radio station to state on the air that the Performance Rights Act would cripple radio stations.

So, either we’re not allowed to have opinions, or we’ll be told what opinions to air in public.  It’s much the same in Hollywood, where an actor who voices his or her opinion about something against the party line gets blacklisted.  Done.  You’ll never work in this town again.  These people, in Hollywood or the music industry at large, will say out of one side of their mouths “We do this because we love music”, and then use blatant censorship of the music for an artist who, outside of music, voices an opinion. 

Next up, it’s Famous Artist #2 with no opinion and another song about fucking for all you teenagers out there in Radioland.

Do I believe musicians should be compensated for their work?  Yes.  Songwriters too.  However, I’m starting to get very, very tired of the U2’s and the Metallicas of the world complaining that their bank accounts just aren’t fat enough.  What they are complaining about does nothing for newer artists being painfully screwed by their record labels, songwriters literally selling their souls for a song (no pun intended?) in a lot of cases, and may conceivably put non-corporately owned radio stations out of business.  If you want to fight it, though, Radio Stations, then open a conversation and leave our music out of it.  In some ways, I may be playing devil’s advocate, but at least I can hope I’m playing fair.

Bailout, bailout, bailout…..where’s ours?

Alright, alright.  Before you start laughing at the title of this, let me start by saying:  “Economic credit bailout recession sub-prime mortgage bank crisis”.  Did this sentence make sense to you?  Did you have to read it a few times over to get all the words?  Well, that’s how this whole economic downturn looks to me every time I crack a newspaper or turn on the television.  It’s an incredible blur of information—according to our politicians and the media, we went from “Everything’s doing just fine” to “We’re screwed” in a very short amount of time.  Even as the economy of the United States of America tanks, our own leaders at home were saying that we wouldn’t feel it as bad, if at all.

            Doesn’t feel like it.  We’re even in the middle of a political crisis stemming from the economic crisis.  Sounds like we’re screwed?  I have a bad feeling about it, but I still can’t gleam enough solid evidence out of the ambiguous statements on both sides of the border to conclusively answer that.

            Once we dragged out of our leaders just how serious the situation is, we started talking about a financial bailout.  In the US, this amounts to $700 billion dollars—so far.  In Canada, we’ll have to wait until January 27^th to find out what the Conservative government wants to do about the problems, and even then, if the newly formed coalition government votes it down, we’ll still have to wait to find out what their plan is.  (I don’t trust a coalition to be able to multitask efficiently—right now their limited resources are all aimed at bringing down Stephen Harper’s government).

            Stateside, the abridged version of the story is that Wall Street loaned out too much money to people who probably had no hope of paying it back, so the United States government was going ot spend a truckload of money shoring up financial institutions to make sure they didn’t collapse.  This is fascinating, especially seeing as a city in Nevada had set up a tent city for people who were losing their homes in record numbers.  This scared other financial institutions who immediately stopped giving out credit to both the average consumer and each other (banks lend each other staggering amounts every year).

            In a nut shell:  The average person doesn’t make enough money to really afford much more than bills, but nobody’s offering any credit except to those with incomes who don’t need credit, so the vast majority of us aren’t buying…..well, anything.  Stores worldwide are telling us how the crowds are NOT coming out in droves during the holiday season, Circuit City has filed for Chapter 11 and it’s Canadian equivalent.

            Looks very bad, right?  So where’s OUR bailout?

            The forthcoming Obama government has a solution for the average person with a huge mortgage in the States—lower their annual interest one percentage point.  So the solution for all the families teetering on the edge, the ones thinking that bankruptcy might just be a good idea, is to say “We’re going to cut you a little slack.”  Trouble is, the payments themselves won’t change, it’ll just help them pay off their overblown mortgage faster.  Doesn’t help Joe Blow right this very moment when the bills are piling up.

            Don’t get me wrong.  I can’t completely fault the financial institutions for this.  We live in a consumerist, must-have society.  Joe didn’t wake up one morning with a mortgage, he signed up for it, just like he walked into a Future Shop and landed that 46” inch super-high-definition TV by buying into the whole “don’t pay for a year” idea.  They offered credit like mad to us, and we snapped it up because we had to have that house, that TV, that car, whatever.  Trouble is, if the banks can screw up and get written a cheque by the government, why can’t the government take a couple grand and write Joe a cheque?  “Here, Joe, it’s okay, we all created this situation.  Rather than go bankrupt, here’s a government-guaranteed consolidation loan.  You still have to pay everything, but we’re going to make things easier.”  So now, Joe isn’t staring at a pile of bills.  We assume (and I’m making a stretch here) that Joe has learned his lesson and isn’t going to run out and rack up more credit.  He saves a couple paycheques and goes out and buys that TV outright.  At least Joe is buying something.  And isn’t that the starting point of a consumer-based economy—the ability of the average consumer to buy stuff?  If we’re not buying stuff, what good is $700 billion if the financial institutions are still unwilling to lend Joe a helping hand?

            There’s a lot of “help the people out” talk bantered around in the news these days, but most of the solutions are carefully suggested so as not to upset the financial institutions, who are getting money from the government but still want Joe to make his payments on time, exactly as before.  I like the idea of the government lending their good name to consolidation loans for the average consumer.  The rules are simple: 

·         You cannot claim bankruptcy on it.  If your consolidation loan goes into default, the government can take your tax refunds or whatever other measures the government normally uses to collect government debts to get the money back.  (A good incentive not to screw up on it.)

·         All of your debts have to be included in the loan, even ones that are in good standing.

·         The loan legally forces all creditors to list in your credit rating as paid in full but does not erase the actual credit history like a bankruptcy would.

·         You are not allowed to seek any credit for a predetermined period of time except for a single credit card with a maximum limit of $500.  (Let’s face it, you have to have one to do some things like rent a car).

Fine, if you fail to make those payments, well, lie in the bed you made.  You were given a chance.  It would depend on two things—the recognition that the average Canadian and American family is suffering, the fact that without direct help, individuals will still claim bankruptcy in record numbers, which helps no one, and the faith that the majority of people given this option will actually learn their lesson and start buying stuff with money they have instead of money they don’t.

            Common sense?

            I’m glad I could give you a good laugh.

Speed City, or, Fighting the Good Fight: Thoughts on the music industry, part II

I’ve spent a lot of time and energy yelling about the atrocities that the music industry at large has been committing against its own customers–the RIAA suing people for illegally sharing music files, the fact that the artists get paid next to nothing (so long as the money the label spent on them recoups), etc. It’s my largest (and to my friends, most annoying) soapbox. As a musician myself, it bothers me to no end what artists are put through to line the pockets of record label executives worldwide.

An experience I had last Friday switched anger to sadness and changed the focus of my concern.I set out on a sunny, relatively warm London afternoon on a mission–to obtain a copy of Nine Inch Nails’ recent album “Year Zero”. I had already downloaded the album (illegally! How dare I? Not having hundreds of dollars to spend on music, I do this as a try-before-buy thing) and liked it enough to want my very own copy of it. I always look for vinyl first, and I knew such a beast existed.

My first stop in London is always Speed City Records. I’ve known the owner, Mike, for well over a decade. I met him while he was working for a small shop called In Yer Ear on Dundas Street. I was impressed–the man could order me just about anything if he didn’t have it in stock, but he normally carried at least one copy, and he had more of the selection of weird, obscure alternative music that I like than I had seen since The Disc Shop had gone out of business years before. Over time, he picked up on my broader tastes and began to suggest things to me. This all took place in a time before broadband Internet connections and mp3s were a matter of existance.I don’t know the details of what happened to In Yer Ear, but I imagine maintaining such an eclectic collection of music didn’t sell enough for its owners to stay in business, especially in the middle of a university city where dance, hip hop and top 40 are the overwhelming sounds of choice. Mike appeared to wish to soldier on and started Speed City Records (the name coming from an old nickname of London’s when speed was the drug of choice). Existing for 10 years with a middle finger (their motto is “In Shitty Downtown London”), the store continued to cater almost exclusively to alternative, punk, metal and obscure material in both CD and vinyl format, new and used. I was in heaven. I could still order just about anything, I could always walk in and find something I’d been searching for for ages, and if I couldn’t, Mike could probably walk over to the vinyl section and pull something out that he guessed I’d like. He’s rarely wrong–he introduced me to, among other bands, godspeed you! black emperor, which continues to be one of my most favourite bands of all time. Mike has been there when I’ve had money to spend, and bought stuff off of me even when he wasn’t sure he could sell it, knowing I needed the money. Amazing. In one do-it-yourself store, I can find both the music I love and the human-based customer service that is almost non-existent everywhere else on the planet.

Until recently, I didn’t have the money to spend even on a single record, and having offloaded a bunch of records to him over the last year to pay for things, I felt completely guilty and stayed away. No sense looking in your favourite store when you can’t spend the money–it only allows for bad feelings, and I didn’t want to provide more assurances that I’d be back in two weeks with a fistful of cash to spend.

What I saw when I walked in last Friday was confusing. The racks that used to contain CDs galore from all of the above mentioned genres were filled with used CDs–not a shiny new disc to be found anywhere. I asked Mike how he’d been doing, and he said, “Lousy.” Right then, I started worrying. Mike had talked for a few years about breaking even with such an eclectic collection, but he always seemed to be in a better mood in spite of the fact.

“What’s going on?” I asked solicitously.

“I’m losing money. Did you see? I don’t carry new CDs anymore, I can’t.”

“Why not?”

“Downloads. Not just illegal downloading, but the legal stuff too. Who wants to buy a CD for 20 dollars when they can go online and pay 10 for the music?”

I used to be skeptical about the actual effect of illegal downloading, feeling optimistic that there had to be plenty more people like me, who maybe download as a try-before-buy thing, or prefer to support the artists in some meager fashion by purchasing the physical product, or maybe just dip into downloading when there’s only one song you like, and the rest of the album is crap or filler. Besides, there’s plenty of ways to indulge an mp3 fantasy legally, with the artists hopefully making some money off of that, too.

As much as I can go on for hours about artists getting screwed by record labels, I failed to notice what was going on around me. Downloads have been blamed for the failure of Sam The Record Man, once an icon in the Canadian retail scene, so much so that some in Toronto wanted it declared a heritage site. Even for a chain store, their support of independent artists and alternative music was unwavering, and (at least in Toronto) decently priced. The Sam’s stores in London had disappeared in previous years, but that was a shock. In London, mom-and-pop operations like Dr. Disc (which I found overpriced, but oh well) died, and while downloading can’t be blamed for The Disc Shop going under, the non-chain store retail music scene has almost disappeared. Out of the ashes of Dr. Disc came Grooves, but they also carry enough of a stock of more popular music that I’m sure they will be able to go on for some time for the vinyl enthusiasts looking for 70’s reissues and the like.

I asked Mike how much longer he figured he’d be able to stay in business, and he said “A few months, maybe. I’m probably going to be looking for another line of work.”

I left Speed City holding the special vinyl edition of “Year Zero” and a copy of Vic Chesnutt’s latest album “North Star Deserter” on CD with a promise that I’d be back in two weeks with cash in hand to get a couple other items I’d seen. The usual sense of excitement that I was eagerly waiting to unwrap and put on the turntable when I got home was replaced with shock and sadness. Mike has been fighting the good fight for over 10 years, trying to supply good music to those of us who can’t stand most of the crap that hangs around on the London airwaves, and he’s about to lose that fight. I told him before closing the door behind me that if I ever won the lottery, I’d show up with a big cheque for him.

I was standing across from the target of my mission, talking to Mike. I was honest in telling him that I can’t understand the ultra-consumptive nature of society when there exists works of art like the Year Zero record. Double-album, 180 gram vinyl (good quality, thick records), three sides with an etching on the fourth, full-size booklet. It was a thing of beauty. Part of the pleasure of buying music for me has always been the packaging–the booklets, the goodies inside, the overall artwork that I could just as soon hang on my wall as put on the record player. When I did my brief foray into legal downloading, I came away with….files on my hard drive. The only artwork supplied with the records is the tiny, low quality image of the front cover that appears inside the Windows Vista folder on my computer screen. Never mind sound quality–just because I’m trained as a recording engineer doesn’t mean I expect the rest of the planet to have the same attention to aural detail as I do–it was just a file. Sure, I enjoyed the music, but where was the rest of it?

I suppose at 34 years of age, I’m just old-fashioned. I read so much about how the legal downloading industry is changing the face of how music gets distributed, how it helps the artists out, how you no longer have to spring the full price for a CD when you have the abillity to pay for just one song off the album. Gone are the days when you had to sit and pay attention for 45 minutes to an entire album while sitting, reading the lyrics or gazing at the cover artwork, and it was a fair guess that the whole album would be good–or even (in my opinon) the smaller size of the CD artwork, offset by special packaging and limited editions that made it more worthwile for me. Hell, I could set up a web site and have people pay for my own music, without the intervention of a record label that I’d probably wind up bankrupting myself in debt to!

Unfortunately, the day is coming when the idea of walking into a record store is also going to be considered old-fashioned. I hope not. I’m already disturbed to think that in a few months or more, I’m going to lose a store that I like shopping at where music is still treated as an object of pleasure rather than something to be consumed and disposed of like a chocolate bar, where I’m made to feel welcome, and where I know that the music I don’t know about out there will be pointed out to me, with none of the lack of human contact that iTunes and other legal downloading sites give. And, if I do see the “going out of business” sign in Speed City’s storefront, I’m going to take a fistful of cash in one hand, a case of beer in the other. I want to pay full price and not sale price for the music I want, sit down with Mike, talk and listen to some good music, if he’s willing. 

He deserves it.  And, after all, that’s what music should be about.

In Newspeak, it’s called “crimethink”….

The Patriot Act has been the most widely known add-on to the general powers of law enforcement in the United States, the most touted amongst said law enforcement as well as government, and the most panned by the majority.

What’s coming is far more frightening.

Bill H.R. 1955, entitled the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″ has passed it’s vote in the House, and is now on its way to a vote in the Senate. Given that it passed in the House by a vote of 404-6, it seems it’s now in the express lane to being signed into law by George himself. Here are the definitions as expressed in the bill:

(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission’ means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(4) IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically-based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

From the very beginning of this bill, the language set out is extremely vague. According to these definitions, if I lived in the US, I believed strongly in something and joked with you at the local pub that I was going to kill you if you didn’t believe the same thing….well, same kind of idea as joking about bombs in an airport–they’re going to take you extremely seriously if they hear it. The definition of “homegrown terrorism” is similarily broad, but a little more frightening–all you have to do is start sounding like you’re getting passionate about a belief and it qualifies.

The premise is simple: the first thought that comes to mind when I consider the phrase “homegrown terrorist” is a US-born citizen, living in the US, stockpiling weapons in his basement in order to carry out direct acts of violence. The media outlets in the US focus on religious extremism, because that is in essence what the main focus of the so-called “war on terrorism” is about, at least on the surface. Break down the literal semantics of the language used, and it paints a different picture. A US citizen can be deemed to be a “homegrown terrorist” for literally any strong belief. What is the measuring stick by which the United States government will determine that they’re being “intimidated” or “coerced” by a particular belief system?

Quite simple: if they say they are.

By this language, I could say that the American government is corrupt, they could turn around and say that the belief system I’ve adopted is meant to intimidate the government and/or civilian population. It’s as simple as that. No clearly defined measuring stick leaves things wide open for just about anything to be defined as violent radicalization or homegrown terrorism, and there is no measuring stick anywhere in the bill so far as I’ve been able to decipher.

The findings of Congress are also interesting. Particularly of note:

(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

Align this with the purpose of the bill as stated on the title page:

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

Can we assume, then, that the American government considers the Internet a threat not only because of how easy it is to access real terrorist propaganda, but also because of how easily it is to publicize dissenting viewpoints on a broader scale? So far, “terrorist related-propaganda” as logically deduced from the various definitions in the bill so far could include any blog that contradicts the will of the American government. Guess I’m a terrorist–not a homegrown one because I am a Canadian citizen….but, I’m sure our government will fall in line all too quickly.

(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

So, we need to understand what motivates dissent. What’s causing those of us who are pissed off enough at the status quo to speak out or act out about it to reach that point, and why are we brought to the level we’re at?

(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

Translation: We can’t keep track of everyone who is a dissenting factor by already-established means, so we have to create a new model in order to eradicate the threat.

(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

Okay, I admit–I find this one more humourous than threatening. The US government has been saying for years that Canada is the #1 major exporter of terrorists to the United States, and yet they haven’t invaded or even threatened us. Their solution–make ‘em get passports. Interesting that we get named, and that the US government says internally that they could learn from us, while badmouthing us in the press. Comic relief at its best.

The rest of the bill can be broken down to a few simple premises: that they intend to form a national commission to look at ways to combat the threat, get some university studies going to find out where it all comes from, and make recommendations. The fact that all of this will fall under the Department of Homeland Security is when we know that something is up.

The effect this would have on American society is somewhat clear. At this point, terrorist groups are no longer the prime target–it shows that the US government now wishes to target individuals, anyone who crosses the imaginary line into radical thought. We’ve gone beyond wiretaps for security purposes and into the realm of ideology–personal belief systems, thought. While the bill says any measures must be constitutional, every bill says this–however, there are enough loopholes in the US Constitution when it comes to threats to the State that the gesture is worthless. In a country that has already screwed up the lives of non-US citizens in the name of terrorism (such as Mr. Arar), where there is direct proof that the US is using torture with prisoners who can be held indefinitely for no stated reason in the name of terrorism, American citizens, and the rest of the world, should be incredibly worried about this one.

One small step for homeland security, one larger step towards martial law, the criminalization of free speech and thought, and dictatorship.

 Further reading:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 — The full text of the H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Military recruiting in schools: We’re coming to you!

While doing my nightly browse of the London Free Press, I stumbled across an article about a Grade 12 student named Martin Schoots-McAlpine at my old high school, South. The Canadian Armed Forces plans to visit the school on October 24th for what the Thames Valley school board has termed a “normal career visit”.

Part one: Fight fear!

First of all, I can certainly say that the military provides options no other post-secondary institution can provide. The first option on the first menu on the CAF web site is “subsidized education.” Following the link provides this little blurb:

“If you qualify for service as a Regular Force officer except for the university degree, this plan may be for you. We will help you earn a degree by providing time and support for part-time study, educational reimbursement, and, if necessary, a period of full-time subsidized education at a university.”

Wow. Can you imagine? And I thought that if I went to university, I’d come out of it into a risky job market with 40 grand in student loans. This way, I have a job–no, a career–and no debts. All I have to do is join the Army. The page goes on to the long list of possible plans.

The next option in that main menu is “pay and benefits”. A full time officer, according to their web site, starts at $42,000/year. After 5 years, this bumps up to 66 grand. For those playing the home game, I make roughly $26k every year. Maybe I should give up my promising career as a CNC operator and go learn how to kill people.

Now, imagine you’re a high school student, about to graduate. Let me restate your choices:

1) Go to university, go into debt for at least $20,000 per year that you’ll spend 10 years paying off–assuming you find a job that will allow you to make the payments without living off of Kraft dinner. Once you’re out of university, you may get that dream job, or wind up working for minimum wage. It’s kind of risky, but you’ve got ambition on your side. Either way, finding a job with decent benefits makes your goals even less likely.

2) Join the military, have your entire post-secondary education paid for, eat reasonably well. After all, the commercials tell you that you’ll be able to take your army training and education into civilian life. Why would you want to, though? Exciting things happen in the army–you get to see the world! And, it sure beats half-assed benefits and minimum wage.

I think that, as much of a pacifist as I am, if I were in Grade 12 looking at this, I’d at least think about it. I’d hate to think what would happen if I was in any way impressionable.

Part two: A normal career visit for the people

I went digging and found a group on Facebook that Mr. Schoots-McAlpine started in order to organize his anti-war event. I remember South, and it came as no surprise to me that the administration immediately balked at rocking the boat, as it were:

“I talked with the Principal of South SS….today as to any kind of counter-recruitment actions that could take place within the school. All requests were flatly denied. I was accused of attempting to politicize a non-political issue, and she had the audacity to tell me that the Canadian Military does not take a pro-war stance in relation to Haiti and Afghanistan. She did say that she would call the Board of Education office in order to see whether or not the Board allows recruiters in schools.”

Okay. I guess I was mistaken–our presence in Afghanistan isn’t a political issue, and our politicians aren’t actually arguing over a time frame to get our people out. The notion that our esteemed military “does not take a pro-war stance” about Afghanistan is propaganda straight from our educator’s mouths. And, of course, the brave face of said educator as appears in the Free Press:

“But presenting all opinions is always a good idea, principal Barb Sonier said yesterday….When the student spoke out against [the CAF visit], [Chris] Dennett noted, South’s administrators offered him his own platform.”

I guess that, in order to be graciously offered his own platform, Mr. Schoots-McAlpine first had to be denied his right to free speech, fed the party line, be accused of being an attention-seeker, and then offered the magnanimous gesture of seeing whether the Thames Valley school board allowed an event that had already been signed off on. Only once the media got involved did they spin it around and say that it was okay for him to organize any kind of opposition to the visit–an anti-war discussion. This means that while the CAF is allowed to set up shop in the lobby near the cafeteria, the opposition gets to have a discussion on the second floor of the school, in a classroom, presumably with the door closed so as not to disturb nearby classes.

What have I learned? Our education system, paid for by our tax dollars, is allowed to promote the military, attempt to silence any voice against it by ridicule and outright lies, change their opinion to effect spin control once the media gets involved–and if they can’t silence the dissension, they can at least make sure that it’s quiet enough that nobody hears.