Thought and Freedom

Public schools are beginning to venture into the domain of self-produced digital curriculum. Through the advancement of technology, we are able to mass distribute content without the need for a third party publisher that charges high rates for their work.

I applaud school districts who have pursued this option. They save hundreds of thousands by building a reusable curriculum and rejecting the textbook industry model.

One benefit that has not yet been discussed is that schools could provide these books in the public domain. In fact, if you follow the federal president, it would be required that these books be made public domain. Since the creation of these books would be on the taxpayers’ dime, it would be reasonable to assume that members of the community could access the learning materials as well.

This could offer tremendous benefits to the community.

1. Help parents understand their child’s classes- Let’s say a parent was helping their child with a math assignment, but they themselves struggled with math as a child. The parent could brush up on their skills before the child began the class, thereby allowing the parent to support the child in the best way possible.
2. Review – How many times have you read a cookbook recipe, made the food once, then forgot how to make the recipe next time around? It happens to all of us. If we allow children to go back and review the subjects they once studied, they would have the opportunity to replenish ideas that had been forgotten.
3. Auxiliary Education – Suppose a retired couple decides to go traveling, but they know little about the geography of the region. They could view the public school geography curriculum on the area to learn more about it. Furthermore, they could see who authored it, maybe contact the teachers, and possibly present more information on the region to the children in the classroom when they return.
4. Homeschooling – Allowing open curriculum removes one of the major sources of contention between homeschooling families and public school systems. By allowing anyone to access the online curriculum, the homeschool families can reduce the cost of purchasing curriculum when so desired.
5. Community Expertise – Residents may have valuable additions from personal expertise on certain subjects that they could contribute to the school district. This would increase the value of the curriculum over time.
6. Working ahead – Believe it or not, many kids enjoy learning. Allowing communities to openly access the digital curriculum allows motivated students to work ahead and/or cover subjects that they would not have had time to take due to limited availability of classes or conflicts in scheduling.
7. Collaboration with other school districts – Educators could save substantial costs by collaborating across school districts. If school x has two thirds of what school y needs, they could just add on to the good efforts of school x’s curriculum. The favor could be reciprocated when school y needs something. In the end, everyone benefits.

In case you missed the CNBC debate, here were some of the highlights from Ron Paul. The only candidate that has the intellectual authority and will to give these kinds of answers is Dr. Paul. This video shows, in large part, exactly why I will be supporting him for president this time around.

During the past several years, there have been dozens of new “text message” laws around the country. These laws range from limiting texting while driving to preventing phone use while driving.

While I think that many people cannot handle texting while driving (Surprisingly, some actually do pretty good at it0), I think we are over-complicating things. The real issue here is car wrecks caused by distracted drivers.

In fact, some people get distracted for other reasons (i.e. radio, coffee, etc.), drive badly, and crash their cars. Is the distracted coffee drinker any less guilty than the texter who crashed his vehicle? Ironically, these two individuals will be treated differently under the law even though they both causes equal harm to others.

Laws should punish harm done and not the arbitrary method used to commit them. For example, if a person is murdered, the punishment should be the same whether they were shot with a gun or pushed off a cliff. In either case, the person’s life was equally valuable and so should the punishment.

Laws should protect others from force or harm and not focus on “methods.” By doing so, we restore focus on the value of life and liberty and remove focus from methods and tools that could be used for good or for evil.

Thank you to Nigel Lyons for posting this.

Nothing says endorsement like a good youtube video.  And this is an extremely well produced one at that. Molotov Mitchel lays it on the line as to why Republicans should have no problem endorsing Dr Ron Paul for president in 2012.

Thanks to Brad Brandon for the find on this video.

The website, Run Ron Paul, has a wonderful documentary on how the Ron Paul movement has watered the withered tree of liberty. If you, like me, are concerned with the lack of understanding of freedom in our nation, this video will give you encouragement…

Here is my brief analysis and commentary on the current state of the Republican nomination process.

Current trends show Herman Cain polling in first among GOP presidential nomination contenders. Before him, it was Rick Perry. Before that, it was Michelle Bachmann. On the other hand, Romney has always been one of the favorites among Republican elite.

My prediction is that Herman Cain will soon fall out of favor and will be replaced by Newt Gingrich. Then, just before caucuses, Gingrich will also fall out of favor, paving the way for a Romney victory at caucuses. This game has always been about Romney. Notice that no one in the mainstream GOP attacks him (even thought there is a lot to attack).

My suggestion to those who oppose Romney in the GOP: Quit listening to those running the matrix. They’ve led you on a Christmas light tour from one candidate to another in hopes that you eventually end the day on Romney. Don’t give in to their sentiments. Read a book by Ron Paul, see if you like what you find.

Don’t just settle for the Republican annointed choice of the day.  If you do, Romney will be what’s left at the table when the dust settles.

Have you ever wondered what a cross site scripting (XSS) attack is all about? OWASP rated such an attack number two in their top ten vulnerabilities of last year.  View the video, then defend yourself against such attacks!

Today, we have a guest post from a man by the name of Henry Braddock. Henry has served in advancing libertarian political causes in the southwest Twin Cities area for a long time. He is an outspoken Ron Paul supporter, and a very intelligent individual whom I have great respect for.

—

Ron Paul’s plan to rein in the out-of-control federal spending and curb the debt crisis [Attention Other Candidates:  THERE IS A DEBT CRISIS!} calls for the abolition of five of the 15 federal departments (Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, Housing & Urban Development).  There are over 800 federal agencies not including 70 independent agencies, 68 special commissions, hundreds of committees, boards, and “quasi-official” agencies, besides the government corporations. Paul’s plan doesn’t eliminate any of these.

Tennessee is the first state to have TSA agents on the highway system. They are now working with the Tennessee department of transportation to perform road inspections in the name of “public saftey.”

They term the inspections the VIPR program (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response).

In perhaps the scariest line in the article, Rudy Gonzales, a early participant in the program said this is “Not only truck drivers, but cars, everybody should be aware of what’s going on, on the road.”

The days of being innocent until proven guilty are over. You are now a subject who has “privileges” and not “rights.” Welcome to the police state.

Our patent system was originally designed to encourage innovation. Therefore, we gave people legal protection against their works being copied for a short period while they recouped their investment.

The thinking behind it was that this would allow the inventor a time period to open up his distribution channels and establish himself as the market leader before the more established companies came in and copied his idea.

Since communication and transportation systems were in their infancy, governments granted longer durations of patents and copyrights. After all, your new widgets might take months to just make it over to the other side of the country. But today we have the internet, we have airplanes, we mass ship merchandise in shipping crates. The fact is that distribution channels are much faster and more efficient than they were a couple hundred years ago.

Unfortunately, the patent system has not kept up. In fact, it has turned into a method to force out the little guys. There are entire patent trolling law firms (when malpractice laws went into place, many lawyers chose to move to “greener” pastures like frivolous patent suits). There are even very large companies that make most of their money by enforcing frivolous patents.

Almost every tech firm in Silicon Valley gets sued for some type of patent infringement. Companies are sued for simple things like using a double click, or creating an easy to use interface on a digital music device. The fact is, the IP system (intellectual property) has morphed into something it was never meant to be.

There are a few things that can be done to reform intellectual property laws. Here are a few:

Patents

• Shorten Patent Length – 3 year term from filing date (10 year term on medicine due to FDA approval process)
• Limit standing to sue to companies who actually have a product fulfilling their patent (No real product? Then you cannot sue).

Copyright

• Shorten term to 10 years since modern printing and digital distribution methods are faster.
• Cannot sue for more than the market price of distributed material.
• No renewals. After term, it goes to the public domain.
• Derivative works are considered unique.
• Repeal DMCA and exit the World Trade Organization (since they require U.S. laws to comply with their regulations)

Trademarks

• Should be limited in nature.
• Very specific, not general. (i.e. A white swoosh looking exactly like this)

Another option

Of course, companies could choose not to copyright or patent at all. Instead they could hide the “trade secret,” making it impossible for other companies to copy their idea without reverse engineering.

Conclusion

These reforms would give inventors that initial edge without being too restrictive on innovation. We need an IP system that accounts for reality. People will only respect a system as long as the demands are reasonable. Perpetual copyrights and  patents on general ideas are not reasonable. This is a better way that will not only encourage innovation, but will cause it to flourish.