McGovern PWNS Cheney

Former Presidential Nominee George McGovern:

VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney recently attacked my 1972 presidential platform and contended that today's Democratic Party has reverted to the views I advocated in 1972. In a sense, this is a compliment, both to me and the Democratic Party. Cheney intended no such compliment. Instead, he twisted my views and those of my party beyond recognition. The city where the vice president spoke, Chicago, is sometimes dubbed "the Windy City." Cheney converted the chilly wind of Chicago into hot air.

Cheney said that today's Democrats have adopted my platform from the 1972 presidential race and that, in doing so, they will raise taxes. But my platform offered a balanced budget. I proposed nothing new without a carefully defined way of paying for it. By contrast, Cheney and his team have run the national debt to an all-time high.

He also said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the U.S. exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.

In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush.

Cheney charged that today's Democrats don't appreciate the terrorist danger when they move to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war. The fact is that Bush and Cheney misled the public when they implied that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. That was the work of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda team. Cheney and Bush blew the effort to trap Bin Laden in Afghanistan by their sluggish and inept response after the 9/11 attacks.

They then foolishly sent U.S. forces into Iraq against the advice and experience of such knowledgeable men as former President George H.W. Bush, his secretary of State, James A. Baker III, and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft.

Just as the Bush administration mistakenly asserted Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it also falsely contended that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exploded the myth that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear materials from Niger, Cheney's top aide and other Bush officials leaked to the media that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent (knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal).

In attacking my positions in 1972 as representative of "that old party of the early 1970s," Cheney seems oblivious to the realities of that time. Does he remember that the Democratic Party, with me in the lead, reformed the presidential nomination process to ensure that women, young people and minorities would be represented fairly? The so-called McGovern reform rules are still in effect and, indeed, have been largely copied by the Republicans.

The Democrats' 1972 platform was also in the forefront in pushing for affordable healthcare, full employment with better wages, a stronger environmental and energy effort, support for education at every level and a foreign policy with less confrontation and belligerence and more cooperation and conciliation.

Cheney also still has his eyes closed to the folly of the Vietnam War, in which 58,000 young Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese died. Vietnam was no threat to the United States.

On one point I do agree with Cheney: Today's Democrats are taking positions on the Iraq war similar to the views I held toward the Vietnam War. But that is all to the good.

The war in Iraq has greatly increased the terrorist danger. There was little or no terrorism, insurgency or civil war in Iraq before Bush and Cheney took us into war there five years ago. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism, a bloody insurgency against our troops and a civil war.

Beyond the deaths of more than 3,100 young Americans and an estimated 600,000 Iraqis, we have spent nearly $500 billion on the war, which has dragged on longer than World War II.

The Democrats are right. Let's bring our troops home from this hopeless war.

There is one more point about 1972 for Cheney's consideration. After winning 11 state primaries in a field of 16 contenders, I won the Democratic presidential nomination. I then lost the general election to President Nixon. Indeed, the entrenched incumbent president, with a campaign budget 10 times the size of mine, the power of the White House behind him and a highly negative and unethical campaign, defeated me overwhelmingly. But lest Cheney has forgotten, a few months after the election, investigations by the Senate and an impeachment proceeding in the House forced Nixon to become the only president in American history to resign the presidency in disgrace.

Who was the real loser of '72?

THE VICE PRESIDENT spoke with contempt of my '72 campaign, but he might do well to recall that I began that effort with these words: "I make one pledge above all others — to seek and speak the truth." We made some costly tactical errors after winning the nomination, but I never broke my pledge to speak the truth. That is why I have never felt like a loser since 1972. In contrast, Cheney and Bush have repeatedly lied to the American people.

It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972. Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over.

Aside from a growing list of impeachable offenses, the vice president has demonstrated his ignorance of foreign policy by attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. Apparently he thinks it is wrong to visit important Middle East states that sometimes disagree with us. Isn't it generally agreed that Nixon's greatest achievement was talking to the Chinese Communist leaders, which opened the door to that nation? And wasn't President Reagan's greatest achievement talking with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev until the two men worked out an end to the Cold War? Does Cheney believe that it's better to go to war rather than talk with countries with which we have differences?

We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it's wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.

On a more serious note, instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."

Matt Sanchez on the Issues

Matt Sanchez's five minutes of fame have come and gone. Matt continues on, now as a blogger, passing heavy handed judgment in the same way he criticized those who delved into his past life as a gay porn star and tried to attach his story to a larger political purpose. In my hopefully last visit to his blog, I stumbled upon his two most recent posts.

On April 20, 2007 Sanchez blogged a piece called "That's the Spirit", commenting on the media's and society's reaction to the Virginia Tech Massacre, during which, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 30 VT students and professors and injured many more. Sanchez rages against people labeling what occurred as a tragedy, stating "Fatal car accidents, sudden infant death syndrome and getting struck by lightning is "tragic", when a man pre-meditates the death of 32 his classmates, this is what American society calls a massacre." Sanchez's reaction baffles me, why can't you refer to this as a tragedy?

Sanchez writes that calling this a "tragedy" reflects an "absurdity of word-choice and the willingness to avoid self-pity". At the heart of this commentary lies Sanchez's disgust for a world that he believes bends the law and is more compassionate towards those of the gay/lesbian/trans-gender community (he's written on this subject more than a few times, it's almost obsessive). Sanchez concludes by asking "Would Cho be any less of a madman, if he were a pre-op trans-gender person of color?". I ask, how can anyone take Sanchez seriously? During the internet flare up that was the revelation of his gay porn movies (he likes to refer to them as adult films), he ranted forever about the gay population's co-opting of his story and politicization of his story for their cause. Is this any different? Here we find the honorable Marine Corporal Sanchez, using the, yes, tragic, shootings of VT students and faculty, to push forth his agenda of scrutinizing those of alternative lifestyles. Yes, Matt, it is tragic, it is a tragedy. For those friends and family of the departed, it is a family tragedy. For the Cho family, to see their son and brother, snap and terrorize a community, it is tragic and devastating. How could anyone fail to see that? For Matt Sanchez, it MUST be called a "massacre", nobody can display emotions and feel sad about it. Am I misreading him? And no, Cho wouldn't be any less of a madman if he was a "pre-op trans-gender person of color", he would still be a murderer who went on a sick rampage.

April 21, 2007. Matt Sanchez comments on the man who raped, tortured, and held captive a Columbia Journalism student, and Columbia's activist community "Take Back the Night" reactions towards it. He begins by describing how Columbia's International Socialist Organization, ISO, speaks out on police brutality, profiling, and racism. "In the following days, students who typically call for the end to profiling and accuse the "pigs" of racism were insisting the police act to capture the rapist.". The logical reasoning is that if you speak out on issues against the police, you are not a legitimate voice in the conversation. Why can't you insist that the police capture a criminal and speak out against police brutality at the same time? The most fallacious aspect of the blog post is that he equates the ISO to the rest of the Columbia community. The ISO is 0.01% of campus, they do not run "Take Back the Night". "Take Back the Night" is an organization that speaks out against rape and violence against women, why question their actions?

Scapegoat?

Monica Goodling has resigned from her position as Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice, coming just 11 days after she cited the Fifth Amendment and at this point is no longer going to appear at Senate hearings she was originally slated to speak at.

Why the Fifth Amendment? Her lawyer John Dowd gave the reasoning,

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real... One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby"

We learned in the Scooter Libby trial that Libby was guilty of lying to federal investigators. Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald did not find anyone guilty of leaking undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame's identity, and it was largely believed that Libby took the fall for more high profile figures like Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Does it not seem familiar now that Goodling has resigned? Perhaps she saw the lessons of the Libby trial and felt that she would be asked to take the fall for Alberto Gonzalez and the White House...

Body Armor and iPods

iPod = standard issue hardware? The flickr caption reads:

"My wife’s uncle works in a military hospital and told me about this. Its pretty amazing. Kevin Garrad (3rd Infantry Division) was on a street patrol in Iraq (Tikrit I believe) and as he rounded the corner of a building an armed (AK-47) insurgent came from the other side.

The two of them were within just a few feet of each other when they opened fire. The insurgent was killed and Kevin was hit in the left chest where his IPod was in his jacket pocket. It slowed the bullet down enough that it did not completely penetrate his body armor. Fortunately, Kevin suffered no wound."

There has been some "controversy" from commenters on the Flickr page about the ability of an iPod to stop a 7.62×39mm steel core round, but the fact is, whatever the weapon/ ammunition was, 20 GB iPod saved this soldier's life. One less fatality can always be chalked up in the win column.

At the Pleasure of the President

United States attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States, not coincidentally, attorneys are often of the same political persuasion as the President. US attorneys are expected to enforce United States law, they are not political tools used to investigate and undermine opposition political parties. When President George W. Bush took the oath of office in 2000, he pledged to Americans that he would make national unity a top priority, perhaps the only growth of unity is in the growing discontent with the Bush administration. The forced resignations of 8 U.S. attorneys, has shaped it to be yet another example of political suppression of actions that are contrary to the interests of the administration.

Karl Rove has made the case that the resignations were not political actions but house keeping measures based on job performance. It is interesting to know what the criteria of job performance encompasses, perhaps they were sleeping on the job or maybe criminals were not prosecuted in an efficient manner. It has come out in recent weeks that the attorneys were removed because they were investigating Republicans in corruption cases and there are indications that they refused to be swayed by Republican Congressmen and women, pressuring them for information that they should not have had access to. It is quite obvious that it is not in the interest of the administration, for its members and supporters to be investigated and possibly be indicted on charges of misdoings. By removing attorneys that are in the midst of prosecuting such cases, the executive branch is circumventing the execution of the law.

• Bud Cummins was removed, according to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, to groom former Karl Rove aide, Timothy Griffin, for the position.
• Kevin Ryan, a Bush loyalist, was actually the victim of the poor job performance, but the DOJ had tried to retain him amidst the chatter of large scale firings. He was removed after a judge sought to go to Congress to make public his poor management problems.
• Carol Lam was removed because she was said to not be aggressively pursuing illegal immigration cases. The Department of Justice had defended Lam's performance in mid-2006, which asserted that she was pursuing larger scale immigration crimes, as opposed to small border crossing crimes. Emails between the DOJ and the White House, show that concern was growing about her expanding investigation of disgraced Republican Representative Duke Cunningham, which was beginning to investigate Republican Representative, Jerry Lewis (he was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee at the time of her firing).
• David Iglesias was removed when New Mexico Republican Party chairman, Allen Weh, complained to Karl Rove that he was unhappy about Iglesias' performance on voter-fraud issues, despite his active role of training federal prosecutors and giving symposiums on that topic. There had also been complaints that Iglesias did not prosecute Democrats quickly enough to make an impact on the 2006 elections.
• Paul Charlton was removed when his investigation of Republican Representative, Rick Renzi, began to ramp up. He had also created opposition with the Bush administration on his refusal to pursue death penalties in a few cases. Only a few months earlier, he had been honored with the Federal Service Award.
  
• John McKay was fired because he had not convened a federal grand jury case of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington State election for governor, following two recounts giving the victory to Democrat Christine Gregoire. McKay has responded, stating that following an investigation from his office as well as the FBI, they were unable to find credible evidence of federal crimes.
• Margaret Chiara was fired, according to the NYTimes, to make room for an attorney the Bush administration wanted to groom for the position.

These firings were not the first instances of politically motivated removals. Attorney Frederick A. Black, was demoted in 2002 while he was prosecuting the Jack Abramoff case through the Guam Superior Court.

Kyle Sampson, top aide to Alberto Gonzales and former UN ambassador, John Bolton (who did so on the Daily Show with John Stewart) have argued that there is no distinction between removing an attorney for politics and job performance. According to them, poor performance can be equated with acting contrary to the political interests of the ruling party.

As far as I know, Department of Justice attorneys do not have a requirement to be impartial. Unlike the Office of Independent Counsel, the advantage of politically moderate attorneys is in facilitating their confirmation by the Senate. As confirmation hearings during the Bush years have shown us, anyone heavily skewed to one ideological direction will get skewered.

In 2005, White House Counsel Harriet Miers approached Alberto Gonzales telling him that President Bush wanted to purge all 93 district attorneys, a move reminiscent of Stalin and Lenin era Soviet Russia. Pursuant with the Patriot Act, the White House would be able to replace removed district attorneys for an indefinite amount of time, circumventing Senate oversight. Checks and balances are effectively eliminated and opposition opinions are never voiced. The removal of those not considered Bush loyalists is yet another example in the Bush legacy of political insulation and suppression of political opponents.

• Valerie Plame, outed.
• Military generals speaking out against Iraq War policy, forced into retirement.
• Political commentators paid off by Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind.
• Qualcomm donors to Democrats, barred from federal Telecom Conference.
• "Either you’re with us or you're with the terrorists".
  
• Bullying scientists on Global Warming.
• Bush Town hall meeting, question and answers, filled with pro-Bush supporters.
• Attorney Scandal, no transcript and officials not under oath.
• Habeas Corpus suspended for ANYBODY suspected of being a terrorist, people disappear without a trace and are tortured.

What are they afraid of? Public opinion?

First you terrorize your opponents into silence so that your movement appears to have no opposition. This gives you tremendous power, not only because moderates quietly feel they are alone in their disagreement with you, but also because the ignorant media – especially the foreign media – casts you as the choice of the people. Having succeeded in silencing moderates, the next step is terrorizing them into cooperating with you. Soon passive cooperation is not enough. You want more than their body – you want their soul, so you terrorize the moderates into being "passionate" in your cause.

In the end, your movement appears to have only loyal and active supporters. Now you are in total control, for who would dare speak out against you? As Hitler said, 10 years before he finally rose to power, "The National Socialist Movement will in the future ruthlessly prevent – if necessary by force – all meetings or lectures that are likely to distract the minds of our fellow countrymen." In other words, all opposition is evil and we will protect you from it. Conservative Columnist for WorldNet Daily, Bob Just

Sound familiar?

Whoah.

My old professor, Daniel Ellis, was talking about Life Blogging, and recording his conversations on a tape recorder. This guy, "Justin", just took it to a whole new level. http://justin.tv/ As of right now, he's been been on for 26 hours. Justin's life, streaming to you via EVDO-Rev. A on a laptop. Interesting. Too bad he's not doing cool stuff. Wandering around San Francisco gets old, fast.

What integrity?

It was easy for the conservative media to defend Matt Sanchez, when it was revealed by bloggers that he had an extensive gay porn past. All the Michelle Malkins, Anne Coulters, and Fox News of the world had to do was say, "That was in the past, he's moved on and we embrace him for his service". MSNBC made the mistake of jumping on this story.

How much of the past really matters though? I'm not talking about when Sanchez's most recent fling as a gay male escort was, I'm talking about how relevant his past is on current day commentary. If you ask Sanchez, he would tell you it means absolutely nothing, it was a dark day in his past and he is working hard to put it behind him. Fine.

If only it was that easy for everyone else in the national spotlight. Forgive and forget, wash your hands clean of past sins. To see the double standard, all we have to do is look at Fox News and the network's treatment of Barack Obama. They have looked into his past and claimed that he attended a Madrasah for four years when he was a young boy. This was found to be untrue in all respects. Along with the Madrasah claim, they have focused on his middle name being "Hussein", his smoking of cigarettes, etc. Barack says he is a practicing Christian, what more does Fox News and its right wing punditry need to know? It was in the past (although their smear job was unfounded and untrue), hence as with Matt Sanchez, it shouldn't matter, right?

Matt Sanchez, has been but surprisingly forthcoming about his past. He hasn't denied the gay porn, he hasn't denied the career as an escort, and it has been refreshing to be quite honest, even if it was because it was impossible for him to deny the claim; the facts are in front of him. What bothers me about Sanchez is his lack of integrity in my eyes.

A few days ago, Sanchez posted a blog entry about his being mentioned (focused on) in a story written by one of his heroes, Kevin McCullough, titled, "Why Christians Embrace Gay Porn Stars". Sanchez said that he was SO moved by the article he wanted to write McCullough a thank you letter, he instead went on his radio program a few days later. The inherent problem about McCullough's article and Sanchez is the content of the article itself.

The first is - he stopped having homosexual sex. The ability to "choose" one's actions particularly as it relates to which gender one has sex with is supposed to be unchangeable in the mind of liberals. The whole "made that way" argument tends to get decimated when someone like Sanchez simply decides that it is an empty, sad, and destructive life that brings him no joy.

McCullough's premise is that Matt Sanchez was a gay man, and has since turned away from that life, essentially, turning off the gay light switch. In that same paragraph, McCullough links to one of his own articles espousing how homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not biological. Sanchez, now, has become evidence that you can become un-gay, by hating yourself enough and turning towards God. Matt Sanchez has denied being gay at every opportunity possible. While he was participating in sodomy on film, while he was a male escort charging up to $350 for his services, while he was posting himself on gay interest sites, all the while, not gay. McCullough's premise, if we choose to believe Sanchez, is then completely false.

I have written Matt many times about this, he has chosen not to respond, he has instead chosen to screen his blog comments and not post mine. How could you thank McCullough when he has written an article about you, using non-factual information, using you to push an anti-gay agenda? It's easy, Sanchez has no interest in serving anyone but himself, and has been doing everything in his power to stay in the favor of the conservative movement.

update:
A commenter has asked if Matt has made the statement that he has ceased having gay sex, please see below. It is interesting though, Matt has committed this statement many times, I wonder why it isn't asked and if it wasn't assumed that since his gay porn past was 15 years ago, he has ceased having homosexual sex. This is compounded by the fact that people have found advertisements for his "services" in the New York Blade as recent as 2004. Columbia University tuition costs a lot of money, I know, my family and I paid for it, it would be interesting to know where Sanchez is getting his income from to pay for his tuition, as he receives no pay being an reserve Marine. If it was discovered that Sanchez was still engaging in homosexual activity, would Kevin McCullough, Malkin, etc. still embrace him? He has not explicitly denied it, but has danced around it, kind of denying it.

Matt says he put it all behind him - Kevin McCullough radio program.
Matt says he isn't gay and loathed himself - On Alan Colmes radio program.


update 2 (corrections):
In a previous update I said that it would be interesting to know what Matt Sanchez's occupation is. Columbia costs a lot and Matt had admitted to prostitution, albeit he claims when he answered Alan Colmes, he says he was referring to porn, which he considers prostitution. According to recent interviews, he has worked in Hollywood pitching films, starting up a magazine, working on Angel for the WB, and most recently he has been working at NYC marketing firm, MDA (I couldn't find it on google, anyone know what they do?) and was recently made partner. Mystery solved

Military Progressiveness, Please?

Reposted from the MilitaryTimes forum:

The notion that one's sexual orientation compromises military readiness if one is homosexual versus heterosexual is without logical foundation.

One's sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual can compromise operational readiness if that conduct occurs. For example, when a heterosexual member of the armed services engages in an affair with the spouse of an active duty member in their unit or command, or a male engages in sexual intercourse with an underage female on and off base, or a senior enlisted active duty member of the armed forces acquieses to the promiscuity of his daughter with other military men on base, operational readiness can be impacted. It is not a leap of logic to find that this otherwise private conduct is either unlawful or has an immediate impact on command readiness given the web of sexual conduct and intrigue within the command. As reprehensible as this conduct is, it would be unlikely to directly undermine command readiness unless it's illegality would subject the member to legal or administrative sanction. In all of these instances, the command was aware of the conduct and did not act against the member, all of whom were former students of mine. The common element was that the sexual conduct involved a male and female, not male and male or female and female.

By contrast, another highly decorated male in the armed services who was viewed as a very macho "man's man" was drummed out of his highly sensitive job in a local military team. His job was among the most dangerous and clandestine in the US military for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to train him. Several of his missions saved the lives of fellow military personnel. Still, he was seen walking in a gay area of San Diego with another military-looking man. Hushed rumors matured into hate messages and death threats. He accepted an honorable discharge after less than 10 years in the military. He had intended to make it his career. Members of his team felt betrayed by him since they believed that he did not share their interest in women. Perversely, they thought if he was not interested in women he must interested in them! The man with whom he was walking was another member of the armed services in a different branch. They were dating at the time. That he did not "tell" nor did his command "ask" was irrelevant. This command did not protect him.

In another instance, a married couple who were both my students, also occupied sensitive posts which called for both to have TOP SECRET security clearances. They were bisexual and some how their command found out about their off-base activities. In an effort to force one of them to leave the service (why one and not both was never clear), their command insisted that one of them would have to leave the sevice to be the responsible adult guardian of their daughter. They had no family who could assume that role. It seemed logical, but they command had always known of their family situation and it had never been an issue until their bisexuality became known. Moreover, the $60,000 re-enlisted bonus each had received would have to be surrendered by the spouse leaving the military. They were understandably outraged. The counsel I gave them in a letter they could share with their command sent their superiors into a panic. As difficult as the matter of guardianship of their daughter might be in the future if sent overseas, the alternative for the military was one that could have lead to reprimands of those up the chain of command, or worse.

The matter of their bisexuality and daughter were dropped. They are still active duty members of the armed forces today serving the nation in their TOP SECRET posts.

I mention these instances to illustrate the conflicting attitudes toward service members' sexuality and just how arbitrary and capricious treatment of individual members can be.

Wrongful hetesexual conduct can be excused and overlooked. Bisexuality can be overlooked if in the nation's interest. Openly gay men and women serve in active duty in all branches of the military without difficulty so long as they are ultra-discrete and closeted in their private lives (not exactly the same standard for heterosexual members).

It is unfortunate enough the irrational prejudices toward gay and lesbian members of the military continues, but this is compounded by the irrational attacks on Matthew Sanchez's political beliefs. It is akin to the illogical notion that all gays must be Democrats . . or it is illogical for a black American to be a Republican.

Those gay advocates who condem Sanchez's political conservatism demonstrate intolerance toward gay members of the service (or former members) who espouse political ideas with which they do not agree. This is much like self-annointed "conservatives" condemming those who criticized the decision to go to war in Iraq. Both act from a rigid ideological base from which they shelter themselves from truths that they do not want to see. One can be gay and conservative. One can also be a loyal American and not want to go to war in Iraq.

It would be better to have a lively poltical discussion with Matthew than to engage in the distraction of how many gay movies he appeared in, or what he did sexually while in the military. They may be titilating in a "National Inquirer" and "Star" centered discussion with lots of heat and overblown rhetoric, but hopefully most of the readers of the Navy Times aspire to more.

Richard Dittbenner, J. D.
San Diego, California
rdittbenner@sprynet.com

Opportunity for Change

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

To Save the MPAA.

From the perspective of the Motion Picture Association of America, their business model is broken. Is it their fault? Have studios been producing increasing amounts of celluloid trash that does not interest the public? Has the advertising model by which major studios rely on ceased to be able to force feed consumers their concept of good cinema? The MPAA will tell you that the loss in revenue relies solely on piracy; internet piracy and bootlegs selling on the streets and subway stations.

"The worldwide motion picture industry, including foreign and domestic producers, distributors, theaters, video stores and pay-per-view operators lost $18.2 billion in 2005 as a result of piracy."

Like most industries, the film industry suffers its ups and downs. If you look at the US stock market, across the board stocks took a plunge in 2001 following September 11th and idled in recession until picking up steam through 2006 and 2007. The movie industry on the other hand had no such recession, since 1995 the growth of the movie industry has risen from $5 billion to $9 billion in 2006 (this is box office revenue alone! not counting DVD sales!). I don't know of any other industry that has been able to grow at that rate. At one point, the MPAA even said that they were losing $250 billion a year to piracy worldwide, with recent estimates being toned down to tens and twenties of billions of dollars.

In any case, the movie industry attributes revenue fluctuation to piracy. There is no doubt that piracy causes a loss of revenue for the MPAA member studios; the illegal market for films is high and widespread. It would be interesting to see how much of an effect that the illegal industry has on strengthening the legal market on account of free marketing and promotion. There is however no way to change the mind of the MPAA. Piracy is a crime and it must be dealt with. I am proposing a way for the MPAA to deal with it.

Movie studios keep their current strategy of releasing films to theaters across the nation. They charge high prices for theater chains to buy films and they take a percentage of ticket sales.

To combat piracy, I propose that the MPAA member studios make available their new films for free online after the film has been in the theater for a set number of weeks and has been available for sale on DVD for a week or two. This assures that retailers like Best Buy and Amazon.com will still retain a significant amount of income from the sale of new DVDs. The online release date can be dynamically adjusted for films, like Titanic, which continued to generate massive box office numbers MONTHS after the premier. Like ABC and NBC have pioneered, movies can be hosted on individual studios' websites, available for streaming over the internet. Advertisements can be run on the page adjacent to the film. Like television, ad revenue can be generated at a high rate due to the significant traffic to the site that online availability would provide. The mentality is that film is best watched in a movie theater and not the home computer. People will pay for the theater experience, but the honest truth is that not all movies released are very good, and there are a significant amount of people that are willing to sacrifice the theater experience for a cheaper price. Blockbuster has proven this.

Providing new films online for free in my opinion would deter a significant amount of people from illegally downloading a movie. The recent lawsuits from the RIAA have been burned into the public consciousness; the MPAA is making similar moves. I would bet that people would wait for the availability of a MPAA sponsored free version, rather than risk a lawsuit while downloading an illegal free version via p2p.

Studios may retain new movies online for a period that may be arbitrarily set, say a month after first posted online. Movies will not be retained online any longer than the fixed amount of time. New movies and old movies will both still be available through Blockbuster, Netflix, Best Buy, Amazon.com, etc.

The current practice of filing lawsuits against the customer is detrimental to the overall health of the industry, and it is destined to fail. We saw it once already with BetaMax. The solution is providing a distribution avenue that delivers what piracy does, but does it within the confines of the law; if paired with an ad delivery system, the free distribution method becomes a new revenue generator. With a legal alternative, customers will be dissuaded from the illegal method of instant gratification and turn towards a legal method that requires some patience.

If the MPAA hopes to increase profits, assuming that revenue loss is directly due to piracy, they need to adapt to the networked digital world where anything can be attained for free. This is the way, lawsuits and scare tactics are not.