Magic Statistics

Received earlier this evening via e-mail from the See of Pisiquid:

Tempt me not for my hour has not come — I already turned the clocks back

This would be a good time to re-read what Samuel Marchbanks had to say about the daylight saving scam. 

The recording and music publishing industries have for years been frustrated in their campaigns to stop illegal sharing of MP3 and other music files.  In desperation, they have sought out other, more readily accessible, targets to satisfy their greed.  One of Canada’s largest music publishers implored the Copyright Board to funnel it more long green, and the Board obliged by levying a fee on legally purchased music files.

Canada’s ethically bankrupt music industry, with the indispensable connivance of a government agency, will force legal buyers to provide compensation for theft committed by actual thieves.  That’s the way to generate good will among one’s customers.

In a decision [PDF] rendered earlier this month, the Copyright Board sided with the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) and agreed to impose levies of 2.1¢ per individually downloaded song, or 1.5¢ per song if it's purchased as part of an album. What's more, the fees are retroactive to 1996, when SOCAN first asked the board to send some extra coin its way.

Think of it as a "virtue tax.” While the legions of peer-to-peer users keep getting their musical fixes for free, online retailers will be forced to cede a bigger chunk of the money spent by those who are wary of illegal downloads  (or just don't know how to access them).

Charles Moore of the Halifax Daily News lays into the piggies.

Copyright-bully "pigopolists" - an excellently descriptive word coined by British information-technology webzine The Register - are on the hunt again in Canada, seeking to siphon your wallet more deeply that they already do.

The self-righteous sense of entitlement these people assume is insufferable. I don't question the justice of content creators being fairly compensated for their work through reasonable copyright legislation. But ever-escalating demands of pigopolist organizations such as the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) far exceed what is reasonable or fair. And their greed seems insatiable.

Ironically, that unethical (not to say corrupt) money grab comes as a new study commissioned by the federal government concludes that file-sharing is good for the music industry.

The study said that in Canada, for every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases increased by 0.44 CDs.

That means, the study’s authors say, “downloading the equivalent of approximately one CD increases purchasing by about half of a CD.”

Based on this study, the federal government can and should resist industry demands for much stricter copyright legislation.  One also hopes the government will end the blatantly unjust penalties imposed on legal customers of the music industry.

Previous related posts:

• Bill Gates: “Just rip it”
• A consumer-friendly approach to copyright reform

A poll claims that Britons think top football players are paid too much.  Well, stop going to the games and watching them on the telly.

Massive pay packets for company bosses and Premiership footballers are threatening to destroy society, it was claimed.

A poll revealed that many stars are earning up to 100 times what the public thinks they are worth.

One of the “stars” singled out for receiving "more than she’s worth" is Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling.  Wasn’t it only a few years ago that she was praised for pursuing her dream by writing the first Harry Potter book while a single mother on welfare?

All those horrid threats to society earn their money by selling products or services to the public.  So, the cure for this alleged problem is simple (in principle): Stop buying movie tickets, popular music and fiction, and, yes, football tickets.  Until then, you have only yourselves to blame.

A large federal civil service union claims that its highest-paid members are not getting a fair deal from the government at retirement time.  In my opinion, they don’t have much of a case.  (Moral case, that is; if this goes to court, of course, anything can happen.)

The Professional Institute of the Public Service is griping because pension benefits are based on years of employment. The more years an individual has worked in the civil service and, therewith, the more money contributed to the pension fund, the greater the pension benefit.  No fair, says the union, because that penalises those who didn’t work as long.  I think that’s the idea: The system was designed that way.

Who hasn’t put in as many years of service?  Those who went to university and earned professional credentials.  It’s true their pensions are lower than high-school drop-out federal employees, but they have their reward: Their pay is higher once they start working for a living.

Union members are the "knowledge workers" the government wants to recruit and retain as waves of baby boomers leave over the next decade. Their numbers, from scientists to auditors, have grown steadily over the years and now account for more than 58 per cent of the public service. They are university educated, many with PhDs, and join the public service at the average age of 36. Joining so late, Mr. [Walter] Belyea [the union's head of negotiations] said, most won't work the 35 years needed to collect full pensions, so they need a separate deal.

They are also among the oldest in the public service and "pensions will be very important to them over the next five years, Mr. Belyea said. The average public servant is about 46 and professionals are typically older. They typically retire between ages 57 and 59. Nearly 40 per cent of the professionals who retired between 1990 and 2004 faced pension penalties because they retired before having enough years of service

It’s true that, with fewer years of service, pension benefits are lower.  But, because their pay cheques are bigger, they have ample opportunity to sock away more cash in RRSPs, property investments, and other retirement investments.  They knew what the pension rules were when they started work, so they can’t claim to be surprised by reduced pensions when they retire at 57.

Furthermore, if those hard-done-by retirees are professionals, most of them are probably prime candidates to become self-employed consultants at $700 or more per day, plus expenses.  Cry me a river.

The union says it’s prepared to go to court to fight for a better deal for highly-paid professional snivelling civil servants.  I don’t know what the judges will make of this campaign, but I doubt it will receive much sympathy from the Canadian public.  The average working Canadian can only dream of retiring comfortably at 57.

h/t: Bourque

Previous related posts:

• Ontario court refuses to enforce union fines
• St Bribe, patron saint of civil servants

A bill to be announced in next week’s Queen’s Speech will for the first time give the partner of a lesbian mother legal status as parent.  Under the Human Tissues and Embryos Bill, when a woman in a lesbian relationship gives birth following fertility treatment, her partner can be recognised as a second mother.

Experts say this marks a historic change in how a family is legally defined.

The change was condemned by family campaigners as a "dangerous social experiment" but supporters said it was "logical and just".

The Bill lays down that where two women are in a relationship and one has fertility treatment in order to conceive then the partner should be treated as the other "parent" even if they are not in a civil partnership. In those circumstances no man — such as the sperm donor — can be treated as a father, the Bill says, to avoid a child having three legal parents.

If Canada’s experience is anything to go by, that last provision could be overturned on human rights grounds if the two women and the father are in agreement.

Britain’s Labour government now presumes to enshrine in law the lunatic and destructive idea that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.  Also, watch for the horrendous complications that will ensue when lesbian relationships break up.

This proposal is further evidence that the time-honoured legal principle of the best interests of the child has fallen by the wayside.

Previous related posts:

• Homosexual father wants lover recognised as child’s second dad
• Family instability correlated with poor behaviour in children
• Scientific studies speak against same-sex parenting
• Ontario court: Child can have three legal parents

The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska has ruled unconstitutional the 1997 law requiring teenage girls under 17 to obtain parental or judicial consent before having an abortion.  The 3-2 decision was hailed by Planned Parenthood, which launched the suit, while Governor Sarah Palin denounced it as “outrageous”.

In a 3-2 decision, the court said the consent requirement robs a pregnant teen of her constitutional right to make such an important decision herself and transfers that right to her parents or a judge.

However, a law that required parents to be notified of a juvenile daughter's plan to have an abortion would probably be all right, said Chief Justice Dana Fabe in the majority decision for the court. It's a option many other states use, she noted.

As illustrated by the vote, the decision was a close call. Both sides agreed that the state has a compelling interest in protecting juvenile girls against their own immaturity and that parents have a constitutional right — a duty — to guide their children. They differed over whether giving parents veto power over a pregnant juvenile's abortion decision went too far.

In Alaska in 2006, there were 1923 abortions, 126 of which were performed on girls 17 or younger.  (The count of abortions for ages 16 and under is apparently not available.)

Gov Palin has already asked state Attorney General Talis Colberg to file a petition for a rehearing.

The full text of the ruling can be downloaded here (pdf).

More comment from Alaska Pride here.  Caution: Graphic image of baby killed by abortion.

h/t: LifeSite

Previous related posts:

• Abortion report shaped by ideological and financial interests: British MP
• Abortion in the UK: Safe, legal, and common
• Alaska governor capitulates on same-sex benefits ruling
• Alaska legislature defies state Supreme Court over same-sex benefits

Whoever made up this test obviously needs to go back to the drawing board.

I have no idea how this assessment was made. Was it based on a count of multi-syllabic words?  Syntax? Spelling and grammar mistakes?

Be that as it may, keep in mind that this rating purports to measure reading level, not depth of insight, quality of argument, or logical consistency.

Here's the rating for the other blog I wrote for, Anglican Essentials Canada Blog:

If that test were taken a few months ago, before my fevered rants began appearing at AEC Blog, that rating would definitely be higher.

h/t: On The Other Foot