David Bowie on Music, Copyrights, Distribution

EddydaSquige writes "In this New York Times article David Bowie talks about his new album, distribution deal with Sony, and how he's "fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing." Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?"

Comments

He is pretty much spot on...

[-douggy]

Sure the artist should be credited for the creation of a song but why should a corporation I dont care about make 5 times the money the writer does. IP and copywrite needs a complete overhaul. Fair use people

It is about time the bigger well established artists started acting like this. They make far more money personing than via RIAA cds

Re:He is pretty much spot on...

[cpt kangarooski]

That's not enough. It's not even the right discussion.

Above all else, any enlargement of copyright beyond none at all has to be justified in terms of an even greater benefit secured to the public than they would've enjoyed had the enlargement not occured. Benefits to the public must take the form of BOTH: the creation of more works, either original or derivative or some combination, and the ability to freely enjoy works in any sense, ranging from freely obtaining them, to being able to use them, modify them, copy them, republish them, etc.

Thus the mere act of creation of a work isn't sufficient to justify their 'owning' it.

Re:He is pretty much spot on...

[artemis67]

why should a corporation I dont care about make 5 times the money the writer does.

Because of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does it seem unfair? Sure, until you think about the alternative: Artists establishing a hit record without the record companies and without borrowing money.

Yes, the cost of capital to the bands are outrageous. However, given the fact that creating a hit band is a longshot at best, there is a high level of risk on the money loaned. The higher the risk, the higher the cost of capital. That's how capitalism works.

Of course, that's what makes the internet so great when it comes to music distribution. Like Bowie said, bands have a chance to elimnate the record company completely and build their audiences via word of mouth and downloands on the net. We are a long ways off from that becoming a viable model, though.

Re:He is pretty much spot on...

[gandy909]

...Thus the mere act of creation of a work isn't sufficient to justify their 'owning' it.

Sure it is....right up to the moment it gets played for the public....

Re:He is pretty much spot on...

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, until I decided to go back to school last year, I had been a self-supporting artist for years. So I have in fact created many many original things over the years, although I would like to point out that there are varying levels of originality. Something 100% original would probably be entirely alien and incomprehensible to people. Understanding requires a certain degree of reuse of pre-existing elements.

(e.g. if I wrote a book that didn't borrow anything, the language, grammar, letters, words, etc. would all have to be original; numerous other people created English as we presently know it, after all)

At any rate, your attempt to sum up my position succinctly has failed.

I am saying that if you create something, the only reason that the vast majority of people who stand to gain from freely using your creation have to sacrifice their ability to do so is an even greater benefit.

Thus, if I write a book, the mere fact that I have written it is not enough to convince the legions of people who want to read it, change it, copy it, etc. to refrain from doing so. My unaltered book isn't worth trading the ability to alter it.

However, it _may_ be worth trading that ability for a brief span of time, since, after all, the readers do want the book. Whether it definately is or not will depend on a lot of specific factors.

This is how copyright works, and it is why people can do certain things to a work (anything not forbidden by law, in fact)regardless of the feelings of the author, merely because those things benefit the public.

Many authors do not like having their books sold used, since they will not see any extra money from this transaction. Nevertheless, it is more important that we be able to do so than that authors profit. Likewise many authors do not like parodies being written of their works, but doing so promotes the public good, and is allowed anyway.

And of course, ultimately, the copyright expires, and the public regains legal exercise of their innate ability to do literally ANYTHING with the work that they please.

If you don't believe me, I suggest that you look up some Supreme Court decisions on the subject. They frequently reiterate that the whole purpose of copyright is to promote the arts, not to benefit authors.

Re:He is pretty much spot on...

[Waffle Iron]

so if we create something, we should not own it?

Ok, if you create something, you should own it.

However, that doesn't address the more interesting question: Why should owning something mean that nobody else can make a copy of it? After all, you still have it after it's been copied.

The answer, of course, is that copyright is intended to create an artificial scarcity of the work, inducing members of society to create more works via a convoluted economic process. The implementation of copyright is very complex, arbitrary and flawed, but unfortunately, nobody has come up with a better alternative.

So, copyright attempts to fill a worthwhile macroeconomic goal, but it's not a sufficient reason to cast the same moral indignation on those who violate copyright laws as if they had stolen your car. The idea is not to give every creator new inalienable rights, but rather to create an overall system where creators can generally make a living off of their works. Violating copyrights should be thought of as an infraction against the system as a whole more than as an infraction against the individual author.

Too many people forget people and corporations were granted artificial property rights over thoughts and ideas as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.

Re:He is pretty much spot on...

[sheldon]

The artists sign contracts, so they put themselves into that position.

But music authors have very different contracts than book authors. The rules for books are quite different, and a publishing company generally does not take ownership of the music. They simply have exclusive publishing rights for some period of time.

This is up to the music artists to correct. They need to come together and fight to have the laws changed so that the contracts are more favorable.

Anyway this issue has very little to do with copyright law other than how the work for hire clause differs between music and books. What I always find amazing is how people bring up this disparity as an excuse to justify things like Napster.

Bowie

[crumbz]

Was ahead of his time by packaging and selling the rights to his current/future music back in the early 90s. If I remeber correctly, he picked up along the line of US$ 53 million from his stock sale. He has little to fear from copyright violations from a personal standpoint.

It's all about the branding. Bowie gets it.

[Hawthorne01]

Does anyone out there buy a record because it's on Island vs. Maverick vs. Sony? (Okay, Maverick is owned by Madonna, which may make me think twice...). Through the selling of bonds, his ISP, and now these comments, it's obvious he's making himself a brand that people know and trust, and therefore are willing to pay for. When music is a commodity in the post-copyright world (which is coming, whether the RIAA likes it on not), the people who have a distinctive style that engenders brand loyalty will have the following willing to pay for music instead of getting it for free. An example of this from the last two decades was The Grateful Dead.

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die

[boy case]

I and others are happy creating GPL'ed software, but we are a very small minority of people producing creative works.

Interestingly, the GPL only works because of copyright. It's the protection that copyright affords the author of the code that gives him/her the right to attach the GPL and insist on the usage that code is put to.

If copyright didn't exist, there'd be nothing to stop people taking open sources and building their own binaries and selling them binary-only unimpeded. GPL would basically equal public domain; this is not the free software movement's aim at all.

Ironic

[XorNand]

It's kinda ironic that you violated the NY Time's copyright to cut and paste and article about copyright issues isn't it?

I don't like the required registration BS either, but you know what I do about it? I haven't registered and therefore don't read the Times (or their advertisers)... voting with my eyeballs.

I would be wise if people stop doing stupid stuff like this. I would be interesting (in a bad way) to have the Time's come after /. with the DCMA in it's fist.

No

[A nonymous Coward]

Copyright is necessary as incentive for the creation of new works

Tell that to Bach, Shakespeare or any one else before probably 1900.

It may in a few instances encourage people to produce new works, but I bet in more cases it discourages people from using established works as the basis for new works. I bet it's a wash whether copyright helps or hinders in the grand picture.

All it really does is enable a few to get filthy rich while not helping the other 99.99% at all. Especially considering the few plagiarism cases that come to trial, where some rich artist (or corporation) is sued by some nobody for stealing his idea. The big guys can afford to steal and violate copyright because they have the lawyers to beat down the poor guys.

Re:No

[DuckyExMachina]

what would really bother me about the loss of rights over my own work wouldn't be so much the money, but the loss of control over the work. if I wrote a book and someone wanted to make a movie based on the book without any credit or input from me, they could. that would bother me. I know the current system doesn't protect entirely against this sort of thing, but any system replacing copyrights must take that into account. not everything is about money (just most things).

bowie's pretty much always ahead of trends

[discogravy]

and he's very much a good businessman and artist. he was ahead of the herd with musical styles and fashions and he's very likely right on this one as well. of course, he's in a position to not care that much, since he's got control of his back catalogue, a huge fanbase, other businesses (bowienet, etc) and lots of unreleased stuff in the can just waiting for a boxset release.

This is a myth...

[Sunnan]

If copyright did not exist:

1. Everyone could distribute copies of software and run all software for all purposes (freedoms zero and two of FSF fame) and
2. there would be no economic incentive for not distributing source with your binary - since your binaries can be copied anyway, why lose the advantages that distributing source will give you? (Cross-platform compability, people looking for bugs, a more trustworthy image, happier customers)
3. and disassemblers would not be illegal.

In a world without copyright, I still think that RMS and FSF would be happy.

Still, totally abolishing copyright is not a stated goal of the FSF. They just want more rights for the users of published software.

Re:End of intellectual property, as sad day indeed

[Ranger Rick]

If I produce software, music, or writings, these are the results of my work and efforts, and nobody is entitled to steal them!

But CDs aren't the results of your work. The music, or words, are. If I, as an artist, burn a CD of my music, and give it to someone, I have lost nothing other than the 50 cents for the media. The music in my head has not gone away.

Intellectual property is no less than private property.

Yes, intellectual property is arguably property, but the mistake is in treating it exactly like physical property.

The problem is not in the idea of "intellectual property" (referencing the originator of a work, acknowledging the creativity that went into it), but in the mistake of using the word property which has connotations that don't directly apply to the very different ideas of a physical thing (a piece of land, a car, a radio), and an idea.

How would you feel if someone stole your computer because presumably they have a better use for it?

If someone stole my computer, I would no longer have the use of my computer. But if I write a song and someone tapes me singing it, what have I lost?

I write music, and I make no money off of it, because I like the idea of people listening to my music. Artists will produce music even if they can't eat off money made from selling CDs. "Artists" who are paid to manufacture generic music for mass-sale will probably go away, but that won't stop real music from happening. It will just stop non-musicians who have a career in music.

Now it may be that in the future, society will agree as a whole that using someone else's intellectual property (singing someone else's song, manufacturing drugs using someone else's formula) will be considered a form of stealing, but it is a mistake to consider it the same form of stealing as taking another person's computer, or stealing their car. That is what exists now, it's too rooted in laws of physical appropriation for it to apply to reality, and that is where these arguments start. When people discuss "stealing" IP they're really talking about two different things.

You know something?

[kmweber]

Without the record companies, you wouldn't have ever heard of any of the artists you listen to today. The costs involved in producing and massively distributing an album are so high that no startup band could ever hope to afford them. Your local garage band may be able to produce a record or two in their garage, and then distribute it to a couple of local stores, but without the financial backing of a major record company, they have precisely a snowball's chance in Hell of distributing nationwide.

Re:You know something?

[MoneyT]

But why isn't the artist hiring the record company? Does anyone else see the strangeness of a record company hiring the artist? Isn't that sort of like TDK hiring EA to produce a game so that TDK can sell CDs?

Re:You know something?

[kmweber]

Then why do you care what others choose to waste their money on?

What's done-for is scheduled viewing/listening

[blair1q]

PVRs and computerized audio recording are going to eliminate any need for "Prime Time", or for any sort of scheduled broadcast entertainment.

Time shifting will give control of life-scheduling back to the public.

If the machines skip commercials, then broadcast entertainment may be doomed, unless something like the British television-licensing model comes into play. Cable rates would have to jump by a hundred dollars per month to keep the same revenues going into the system.

P2P won't make so great a dent as to obviate copyright. Mass-market bandwidth is too low, and it's too easy to recognize the traffic signature of illegal file traders. The Xerox machine didn't kill publishing, and Napster didn't kill the RIAA.

--Blair

David Bowie Is Cooler Than We Though!

[Lethyos]

An artist, a rather good one at that, has stepped forward and made a move for the greater good.

Now the question is, will the Slashdot community - a group always bitching about these issues - use its large, unified presence to mirror that good act? I was just discussing with my girlfriend that we ought to go out and purchase the CD as soon as it becomes available.

If there's a huge show of support for Bowie's move here, it will reflect that his ideals are good ones. Others will follow his lead (lots of other artists have - but after seeing his success). So go out and actually buy a disc with confidence that most of the money is going to the artist, instead of some rich old wind-bag's pocket.

Bowie, Weezer, Wolco, etc.

[joel8x]

These artists are brave enough to prove the future of the music industry does not need to include the "industry". This has been a long time comming and I hope that the general population supports this mentality so that music can be appreciated based on its true value, which is not how much money the big labels can thow at the flavor of the week, but on pure talent.

Money is the whole point, of course

[mckwant]

If the Bowie model of doing bonds makes more money than the current revenue model, then the record companies might start to listen, but Bowie's catalog is reasonably consistent. Ziggy, Aladdin Sane, Pinups, and The Man Who Sold the World are (presumably) all steady sellers. We're not talking Pink Floyd or The Beatles here, commercially, but still...

Point being, you can't apply this model to an artist that doesn't have that kind of track record. Try floating "Britney Bonds" or "'Nsync Notes" and see how far those fly. They won't, because they don't have any chance of producing the kind of steady cashflow that Bowie's sales produce over time.

Even looking at more relevant bands of this era (choose your own), they are ALL likely to fade within 10 years, and won't provide the sheer volume of Bowie's output. I happen to love the Pixies, but I have trouble thinking that anybody's chasing down "Bossanova" in their local Tower Records.

Neato model, points to Bowie's finance team for developing it, but applicable in a miniscule number of cases. If Bowie, in fact, owns his own IP, it might even be unique.

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die

[dangermouse]

Actually, this is the free software movement's aim. You're just missing an important piece of the puzzle: all software would be in the public domain.

The GPL does not allow the copyright holder to insist on usage, it only allows him to insist that distributed changes be distributed in source form.

I forget where I read it, but someone from the FSF (maybe it was Stallman) has basically said that the GPL is a hack and necessary because of copyright law... that you have to work within the system to bring an end to it. His contention was that just throwing your code out into the public domain is not effective so long as copyright exists. You have to admit, it makes a lot of sense, if that's your end goal.

Personally, I'm down with copyright. I just think someone needs to put it back in check.

Almost

[WinPimp2K]

He sold BONDS which were to be paid back from the royalties earned by his music.

I f he really believes copyright will be dead in the near future, then he will probably be on the receiving end of a pretty darn hefty fraud investigaion.

It would be like oh Donald Trump selling Bonds to finance a new casino in Atlantic City, with the casino revenues to repay the bonds all the while expecting the state of New Jersey to outlaw all casino gambling 5 years after the casino opens.

Not copyrights, contracts

[DragonMagic]

Don't get upset at the copyrights, get upset at the contracts these corporations impose on the artists, and the monopolies they have with major distribution chains.

Try to find your local indie band at any national record chain, and chances are unless they're on MTV or Clear Channel, they'll not be found. This is because the national chains go through publishers or huge distributors, where only the top publishing houses can sell through.

You'd have to go to a local chain or a mom and pop store to find indie artists most of the time, or just to the artists themselves.

What we need is an overhaul of the music distribution chain. Sites like eMusic and MP3.com were set to do that until they were bought out by big publishers. They weren't bought out because they were failing, they were bought because they imposed a threat on the distribution network.

Hell, if you want to be rich, it's not making a religion, it's not winning the lottery, is threatening legally the bottom line of a multi-national conglomerate. Find a better, legal way to do what the publishers do, and they'll find a way to offer you money to go away.

Re:CopyRight

[MoneyT]

You may not realize it, but you just described the current trend of the US economy. We are moving very quickly away from a manufacturing economy (which is where patents, copywrites, and other IP protections come in handy) to a service economy, where payment on a commision is going to become more prevelant. Hence Bowie's statement that performance and touring will be the way to make money on music in the future.

Only rebels left are old!

[Dr. Spork]

Am I the only young person who notices that the only people who express their dissent at stupid things in this world today are old? This is a terrible sign! I seriously think that historians will view this decade as the "era of new conformity," sort of like the 50s without the commies.

I'm serious: Take for example the only people you see speaking out in public against the idiotic "War on Terror"--they are old! Even academics who find it just as stupid as I do keep their mouths shut, even if they have tenure.

The same goes for this "Intellectual Property" debate. I would be shocked if there weren't many young artists who agree with every word that Bowie says about the subject. Still, they keep a low profile and don't rock the boat, because we live in a climate where that gets you severely punished. I wasn't there, but I suspect in the 60's and 70's people faced the same dilemmas, but they said "fuck it, I'll say what I think and see what happens." But then again, maybe the government and the corporations have us under a tighter clamp now than any other time in Western history since constitutions started being written.

Sure, we all have a right to free speech, but the system has made it so that speaking freely is severely against our interest. This means that even though we won't go to jail, we will get fired, spied upon, harassed, and vilified as friends of terrorists. (How long will it take before somebody argues that abolishing IP laws would be "caving in to terrorism"? Surely they will find some stupid, tenuous connection.)

Anyway, this era makes me sick. You people suck. I might as well burn my books now to save you the trouble, because when these old-school rebels die, nobody will raise their voice in protest.

Re:Only rebels left are old!

[AftanGustur]

Here's a tip - go look at the results of the current poll. About a third of voters are looking for love. That probably means they're quite young but look at all the bile, outrage and debate on slashdot!

I doubt that bitching and trolling on /. qualifies as "speaking out".

Re:Only rebels left are old!

[cdn-programmer]

You are not entirely correct that the act of viewing a web page does not result in profit to the copyright holder.

The telecommunications industry about 2 years ago was enjoying "convergence" with conventional content creators. The reason for this convergance (Ie share swapping) is that the combined organisation would be able to increase its subscriber base and hense make more money. Thus they very much did and do benefit from the viewing of web pages.

AOL is a perfect example of this. Probably more than 90% of the content that AOL delivers to its subscriber base is derived from the backbone. TO this, AOL adds a little icing to the cake so to speak and attracts 33 million odd customers. AOL gains a revenue stream of about $20 x 33 million through this process.

If there is nothing to be gained from viewing a copyrighted page then where would AOL be today if any ISP in the world could simply grab the AOL content and deliver it in competition to AOL?

The bottom line is that if you are in a position to actually deliver the content you own, then you can make money from it. Everyone else subsidises the delivery system.

Starving artists!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists won't produce music if they can't eat.

I know plenty of great recording artists who actually lose money on their work. They do it for the love of the work, not to make money.

Sure you'll be able to download free music from the net, maybe enough songs to fill a whole cdrom

You have no idea what you are talking about. Napster contained many many hours of songs that were never sold to begin with.

He's half right. Copyright will change

[crovira]

First to go is the definition of Copy.

Not the mechanical act. That is now cost free and not sustainable as an economic base (Sorry xxAAs but you're gonna die. There's no reason for you to exist anymore. When I'm picking up the cost for storage on my own box and the cost of transmission to my own, the thing is MINE, not yours.)

Copyright is going to go, uh, right, back to the _person(s)_ who created the work.

Given the economies of scale (the internet makes China look like a local market,) and of distribution, (got a [hosted] server hooked up to a T3 switch? You're a media giant,) and the ability to charge for one-time or subscription access to a web page with content scaled for content (sampling, scaling,) combined with the IPv6 capability to identify exactly where a message or some content originated from, the artists are about to start raking in the money themselves.

I think that the packaged album is going to be a casualty if this shift though. If there's only ONE song you want to listen to, you shouldn't be stuck with the other ones that the company decided they wanted to use to fill out the rest of the CD.

The xxAAs are going to wither on the vine. I don't think that Hillary Rosen could hum anything I'd want to hear. Nor do I want to see Jack Valenti's holiday slides.

rebelling for rebelling's sake?

[Anonymous Coward]

"every generation has to have a cause"

That has been the justification for some of the stupidest decisions in our history. Lets make sure we are not rebelling, but are in actuallity preserving what this country was founded for (and by). If you do not like what this country stands for (and I am talking about in relation to its founding principles not what it has changed into) then please leave this country and let other enjoy it. Just as I would never walk into your home and demand you let me in, feed me the food I love and let your daughter and wife have sex with me... I do not accept any attempt to destroy my liberty and freedom by 'well meaning' individuals.

Notice though that 'well meaning' is the chant for how we got into this mess in the first place, so it is not an issue of left vs right, or any other crap like that. It is a 'let me be or not' fight.

Should IP be done away with, or like violent crime should the abuse and misuse of it be what is dealt with. After all, who doesn't use knives in their homes. Who does not drive? Yet cars and sharp objects (including sticks) are the leading causes of accidental death, that includes drunk drivers and rage drivers as well. Then we have murder stats... tisk tisk tisk. Like 'hate crimes' we must ensure that we do not end up watering down the existing 'responsibility contract' more than it already has. (i.e. all murder/beatings are hate crimes, why water those down by introducing ideology?)

Re:As I read these comments

[Chris Johnson]

And so now he's supporting the destruction of the whole system by which he used to get that income, since he doesn't believe it has a future. Hee! I love it. Kinda sucks to be Prudential though :D

Here in Russia, copyright enforcement is difficult

[tgma]

The courts are slow and inefficient, even when they are honest. I have not heard of a single case where copyright has been enforced. Every so often, the police do a big public action where they raid the CD markets, but the same sellers spring up somewhere else. The record companies do a bit of anti-piracy advertising but in general, I think that they have realize that there is not much that they can do, so they have reduced the prices of official CDs, and just resigned themselves to it. This means that artists make money, as far as I can see, by advertising, and by touring. There are five or six big casinos who hire big name Russian artists, and very small-name Western artists (e.g. Boney M) to play as a means of attracting punters. This works for the bands that appeal to an older audience, and you get some of the bars hiring the younger bands. The teenybopper bands spend most of their time doing regional tours, as far as I can see. This presumably means that the record companies take a more direct role in their acts, especially in the tours, since this is the main revenue source. They all have videos, and these are paid for in order to increase profile for the touring audience. Presumably the record companies are investing in acts now in the hope that they can also make some money off the official CDs (there are people who prefer to be honest, or certain of the product's quality) and will make more, when they find a way to beat the illegal CD market. I think that this is not that different from Bowie's vision of the future, and I can't be sure if it will make it harder or easier for small bands to develop. It seems to me that you still need record labels, or management companies, or some corporate entity that can help an artist become famous, just as they do now. For one thing, most artists make bad businessmen or women, regardless of their field. Of course, there are exceptions, like Madonna, but these are basically exceptions. There was another good article in the NYT over the weekend about how hard it is to persuade newly rich artists to properly handle their finances. Bottom line - corporates will always find a way to make money, but they will have to be flexible in doing this. It probably means that the music corporations will get bigger, not smaller, and will start to look after artists' tours as well. And all their image rights, and publicity appearances - I'm sure there's something in William Gibson about all this.

The light?

[crucini]

Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?

The music industry has seen the light with great clarity for quite a while. That's why we got the DMCA and why we're getting the too-long-to-pronounce law. Don't phrase this as a matter of clueless old farts who should "see the light" and join the internet age. It's a matter of an entrenched, wealthy, intelligent elite which will fight to the death to preserve and enhance its privileges and income.

The implication of this "see the light" comment is that the music industry should adapt to changing conditions. But an excellent quote which I can't find right now says, in effect: "Individual organisms do not adapt to changing conditions - the species adapts via the death of ill-adapted organisms".

Give me a break! - 60s was a joke

[alexhmit01]

Gee, 99% of the 60s radicals wanted an excuse to do drugs and have sex. They railled against society and used it as an excuse for permiscuity. They were all then extremely comfortable moving out to the suburbs to live in an all-white community without minorities. From these comfortable homes, they shielded their children from society, voted for tough-on-crime measures, and support the war-on-drugs. They are extremely concerned that their children will be exposed to sex and drugs. In a word, the 60s as a culture has been invented by an entire GENERATION of spoiled brats. The "greatest generation" spoiled their children, and to this day they need to assert their superiority over everyone else. Notice that the same "hippies" that spit on our servicemen returning from Vietnam and protested Vietnam are all flying the USA Flag on their SUVs in suburbia?

I watched the past 6 years, it was amazing. We saw young technologists unleash disruptive technology that turned out understanding of retail and markets upside down. Sure the dumb money caused a boom-and-bust, but such is capitalism. There are numerous people publishing on the web, providing information. Sure most of the "clicks" are with a few major companies, but so what. Most of the time I don't need unusual information, major news sites handle my needs, but the wealth of information available when I am looking is astounding.

Look buddy, I have nothing against 17-22 years old that idolize the 60s and rail against the establishment. Good for you, have fun. Just try to realize when you're sitting in a coffee shop talking about the establishment being pathetic that you are full of shit. I love my lefty friends, but I also know to laugh at them when they talk about the evils of corporate America while sending the credit card bill home to daddy and spending his money.

The thing that makes America work is our willingness to get shit done. The French sit and whine, wanting a 35-hour work week, never to see battle, and a seat at the UN Security Council. Americans understand that when it comes time to do the heavy-lifting, its going to fall on us. While lefties (American and European) seem to have unlimited amounts of energy to bitch and moan about people benefiting from this heavy-lifting, most Americans realize that if the rock is going to move, we're going to move it.

The American people aren't pathetic, you are. Waxing philosophical about the irony of another Cold War ally taking our training and using it against us doesn't help. Facts not in dispute: Hussein (who, along with his sons, is a truly evil individual; which has nothing to do with our hegemonic reasons for fighting Iraq, but his family DOES consist of truly evil people) was dealt with 10 years ago, and may need to be dealt with again. Bin Ladin took our training and build an army for holy war, which is especially ironic given that our friends the Saudis fund it (and they ARE our friends, we back the House of Saud, they keep the oil flowing).

So, we created our nightmares? What's the point? We did what we had to do to win the Cold War, and we did win the Cold War. There are some costs that we are paying now. Most Americans realized that we were going to have to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and head off to stop Al Qaeda. Sure most Americans don't understand Islam, have a trivial understanding of why they hate us, but have a terrific understanding of something that you are lacking "They hate us AND our way of life," at least when our way of life involves stationing troops in Arabia to keep the corrupt House of Saud in power (which we explain as keeping Iraq out of Saudi Arabia).

These "old radicals" were absurd in their day, and absurd now. The difference is that they were revered by the suburbanite middle class when they were "hippies" so they get to go on camera and be silly.

Geeze buddy, grow up.

Alex