Blog MILESTONE - Over a Quarter Million Page Views!

The Virtual Philosophy Club, my main Blog, has just passed the 200,000 page view mark! Including my three other Blogs (Curb Your Enthusiasm (2,034 views), Life, Liberty, and Technology (10,402 views),  and The Hawking Plan (my free online novel) 42,289 views) the total sum stands at nearly 255,000 page views.

Add to that my postings as a Guest Contributor to Watts Up With That, the world's most viewed Climate Blog,  that earned 290,629 page views, and my online writings have garnered over a half-million page views. (In addition, an unknown number of my Watts Up With That postings have been republished on other Blogs, most likely adding at least 100,000 additional page views.

The point of this is that I, an ordinary person, with a PC and web access, have reached hundreds of thousands of people with my views as a "Citizen Journalist", see: Guardians at the Gate are GONE - Freedom of the Press !!!,  and The Blogosphere - Millions of Citizen Journalists.

I've also posted videos on Vimeo and You Tube that have garnered thousands of views.

Other than the cost of Internet access, and electricity for my PC, all this activity has not cost me a single dime. (On the other hand, it has not earned me a penny either).

Ira Glickstein

I am Charlie - Je Suis Charlie

The most recent issue of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo has sold over 5,000,000 copies, amid great controversy, yet, as far as I know, an image of the cover has NOT yet been published by many major US TV news organizations! The cover image has been shown on TV by Fox News and CBS, but not yet by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or ABC as far as I have been able to confirm.

The graphic shows the original French edition (left) and my English translation (right), with Voltaire's famous quotation superimposed.


By its own admission, Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) is a "Journal Irresponsable" ("Irresponsible Journal") and its stock in trade is satire of various religions and other deeply held beliefs. I certainly do not wish to encourage publication of such divisive material, yet, along with Voltaire, I have to defend the right of publication of such material in a free society.


What do you think?

Ira Glickstein

First Amendment Rights and Responsibilities

[from Don Hess]

• I’ve hosted a group in The Villages called the World Affairs Forum for almost 4 years. Ira and I have had a few conversations and he’s given me the “keys” to contribute occasionally to the conversation here. Thanks Ira for the chance to present what will probably be provocative - and maybe controversial – views.
  

With regard to my views today, I’ve got to make the disclaimer that I’m no legal scholar or “expert” in any way; just a guy who is interested in being governed fairly and well and being a good citizen of this country and the world.

It seems to me that there are issues today that deserve our serious attention, and that many of them get ignored in the noise of what is euphemistically called “debate”. What I’d like to talk about is HOW we debate and whether that is productive of any real solutions or not.

It has been said that it is a “curse” to live in “interesting” times. The events of the past several months here and around the world lead pretty convincingly to the belief that those are certainly the kind of times we are living in. The curse is in trying to understand them.

In Tunisia and Egypt, in Yemen and Bahrain, in Jordan, Syria and Algeria there have been uprisings against dictators – both “benevolent” rulers and tyrants – in the region. The uprisings no doubt, currently have their origins in the terrible economic conditions of our times. But the historical causes have certainly been oppression and corruption. “Freedom” has been the cry of the protestors …the freedom of Democracy and self-rule.

So we are asking ourselves why this is happening now. Why not decades ago? Some of these tyrants have been in power for three (Mubarack), or four (Khaddafi) decades. In Iran, whose Green Revolution foreshadowed by months the revolutions of today, the Mullahs have been in power for over 30 years since the overthrow of the Shah in 1978. So why now?

I believe the answer is freedom of speech - not that “that” has been granted by the tyrants who maintained their tight control through a monopoly on communications - but that it has simply been taken by the protestors through the power of new technologies – satellite T.V. and cell-phones, the internet, and Facebook - that transcend the powers and borders of state control. And now the citizens of those countries, using the freedom of speech that they’ve ripped from the dictators, are dying in a fight to win the other freedoms of Democracy that we’ve enjoyed and taken for granted for a couple of hundred years since our Revolution.

John Kennedy, in his inaugural speech fifty years ago, declared that “the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbears fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” And in the same speech he also declared that, “We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.” (and that we, as a nation, are) “…unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.”

So today, while others die to gain the liberties we have been assured in our Constitution's Bill of Rights, I would like to look at what is “at issue” in this country of ours with regard to what James Madison declared the “most important of rights” – the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.

The 1st Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition their Government for a redress of grievances.”

Aside from religion, there are two issues here; freedom of speech (personal and press) and freedom of assembly - for the redress of grievances. In the current events of the past few months and weeks we have seen both several efforts to exercise these rights and some challenges to this exercise.

We have seen the exercise of that right in the face of world government secrecy by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. (Please go to "You Tube" and type in "60 Minutes" + "Assange" to see a 30 minute interview with Steve Croft and Julian Assange).

That exercise has been challenged in our country by our Defense Department, State Department and Department of Justice. There are those among our politicians who have called him a traitor and a terrorist and demanded his execution because his actions put in jeopardy those in our military, diplomatic and intelligence services. But the questions he has raised may have really helped bring about the revolutions for democracy in the Middle East by exposing cables between Arab rulers and our State and Defense Departments.

So the questions to be asked about the “issue” of freedom of speech concerning Wikileaks, I believe, are the following.

• Is government (or corporate) secrecy really covert censorship of the 1st Amendment right in this country?
• Does revelation of secrets (aside from redacting the names of combatants, CIA “operatives” or their foreign contacts) really pose a danger to our country? If so, why and who should make that decision - the government or the publisher of such secrets? And if so, would more transparency among governments as to their dealings with each other lessen such danger?
• Are our laws and the enforcement of them adequate to protect “whistleblowers” both outside and inside of government or do we need organizations like Wikileaks to protect them? Does that “whistleblower” have the right to make the determination of “abuse”? If not, who does?
• If the primary reason for “whistleblowers” supplying documents to Wikileaks is their firm belief that there is not enough internal transparency or external forces (co-opted media) to enforce disclosure, does the “whistleblower” have a duty to force that disclosure through supplying Wikileaks with secret data?
• Should a “publisher” such as Assange, be free of prosecution if he does not either seek or pay for particular information, but simply makes himself a conduit for those who offer it?

Meanwhile, here at home we have seen the exercise of the 1st Amendment right of assembly for “redress of grievances” against the government actions in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana. The same example of peaceful conduct has been observed in these protests as was set in the protests in Tunisia and Egypt. And yet there has been a consideration of attempts to provoke and thwart that good conduct revealed in a “prank” conversation between Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker and a Boston blogger. The reason Walker said he decided not to use “troublemakers” as Mubarack did in Egypt was a practical one - not a moral one - the “public” was getting irritated with what had already gone on. Then he shut the capitol to protestors.

Maybe it will seem that it’s a bit of a “stretch” to equate an attempt at union-busting to free speech. But perhaps you will recall that last year the Supreme Court, in a decision called Citizens United, decided that money was equivalent to free speech. I doubt that when the Bill of Rights was written there was a consideration of the enormous power of corporations. All politics and the spread of information about it - through newspapers - was local. Editors were fiercely independent, and there was little chance of corporate control of media.

Today huge corporations have huge budgets to influence elections, and the decision in Citizens United gave them even more opportunity through making it possible for them to fund “ads” against or for any candidate – out of their “general” revenues - through 3rd party organizations. Only a weak provision for “disclosure” of funding sources for these organizations prevents total secrecy about who is “pulling the strings” in any campaign and thwarts investigation into what reason for that is.

So, money is now the power behind the huge “megaphone” available to corporations and unions that wish to heavily influence the electoral process. But, if the unions can be “busted”, and the provision for dues “checkoff” taken from them and therefore their political contributions, then the playing field is heavily, and I believe unfairly tilted toward corporations whose funds come from profits and are paid for by the very consumers who buy their products and who may very well not agree with the corporate political purposes.

Do you suppose that could be a reason for the fight in Wisconsin? Do we suppose that using consumer money is any more “fair” than using “taxpayer” money (an allegation which has proven to be a false conflation with union dues)? Do we want to condone by silent witness the actions of a government of the sort Wisconsin has shown itself to be? Is the Golden Rule not the rule by which we, ourselves, would LIKE to be treated? If we allow others to be treated in an inferior or underhanded way, can we expect more for ourselves and OUR objectives?

The final thing I would like to talk about today is responsibility in return for privilege. Is a right always a “RIGHT” under ANY circumstances without ANY obligation to use it responsibly? Is “hate” speech a responsible use, or an ABUSE of the 1st Amendment right? Does this “right” require “us” to “give up” something (our personal prejudices and bad behavior) in order to get something (freedom to express ourselves fully, usefully and responsibly)?

Let me propose a simple example of what I mean. We are all familiar with the “right” to proceed with a green traffic light. But that “right” denies a person from proceeding who is coming from a different direction and is faced with a “red”. This is a rule that is agreed upon by everyone. It is easy to understand because its violation will produce physical consequences that will ruin somebody’s day.

But it seems to me, that with regard to the equally consequential right of free speech, because it is more esoteric, and the consequences are not so vivid and immediate, that we all now wish to shout “freedom” and ignore the obligation to act responsibly. Here are a few examples:

An assistant Attorney General for the state of Indiana – a high public official with an obligation for leadership in the public eye – recently “tweeted” that he favored the use of “live ammunition” in dealing with the protestors in Wisconsin. He followed this up by declaring in an interview that, “Hell yes, I’m for the use of deadly force.” Imagine THIS in the United States of America which has inveighed heavily very recently AGAINST the use of deadly force in Egypt and Libya. Needless to say, the man was fired. Someone at some level - probably Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels - had the good sense to exercise the responsibility that this official wouldn’t.

In another example of hate speech, at a rally by Paul Broun, a member of Congress in Georgia, an “elderly” man asked, “Who is going to shoot Obama”. Instead of taking a position of moral leadership and rebuking the man, the representative “allowed”, that, yes, “I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year.” It took him three days to realize that what he had tacitly condoned for another by his refusal to rebuke, could help create a climate in which the same thing could happen to himself as happened to Gabriel Giffords in Tucson, and which he was condoning by his silence for Obama. At the end of three days his staff issued a disclaimer.

So, I would like to ask whether, by the actions described above in Wisconsin, Indiana and Georgia, we are creating a climate of irresponsibility in this country that will “witness” and “permit the slow undoing of those human rights” which we have been greatly privileged to enjoy and which were paid for by the blood of generations before us as they are being paid for in our time by the blood of those who are fighting for them today in the Middle East.

George Bernard Shaw, an Irish playwright, journalist, critic, and Nobel Laureate once wrote, “Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”. I think we all, in this nation, will determine by our present behavior, by our attitudes and behavior toward our “rights”, and by our civility, or lack of it, toward each other, just what kind of government it is that we “deserve” and wish to preserve for future generations.

I hope that we will, in the future, treat our problems with the seriousness and responsibility they deserve and not just give lip service to their solution while each demanding we have our own way. I believe it will be only through courtesy, civility and cooperation that they can be solved. God help us if we don’t realize that and practice those qualities in our discourse and in our politics, and insist on them from our leaders.


Don Hess

Elite Opposition to Online Information

Elite academia has their underwear in a bunch about use of online citations by college students. A few years ago, the History Department at Middlebury College went so far as to bar students from citing Wikipedia as a source in papers or other academic work, a story picked up by the NY Times (of course) and immitated by UC Santa Cruz and others.

Online sources, they say, have made it easier for students to copy material and submit it as their own writing (plagiarism). Much of that material, opponents claim, may be false because it has not gone through the editing and review process traditional for books and magazines.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

In a recent talk on Freedom of the Press in the Digital Age at our local Philosophy Club, I used these examples to illustrate how "the authorities" always try to shut down alternative sources and technologies that undermine their monopoly control on information. The academic elite that controls the publishing industry and the main-stream press hates it when they lose control because they simply do not trust ordinary people.

THE AUTHORITIES ALWAYS FAVOR CENSORSHIP

Back around 1200 AD Pope Innocent III banned the common language (vulgate) Bible because, he said “… The mysteries of the faith … cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence.” In other words, if you don't understand Latin you have to listen to the interpretations of "qualified" experts, i.e., the Pope and priests. In the 1450's when moveable type printing came into use, drastically reducing the cost of reproducing books which up til then had been a virtual monopoly of the Church and the Crown, no one could own a printing press without a license.

The English Parliament, in 1643, noting "Abuses, and frequent Disorders, in printing many false, forged, scandalous, seditious, libelous, and unlicensed Papers, Pamphlets, and Books" by people who "set up sundry private Printing Presses in Corners" ordered that no "Book, Pamphlet, or Paper, shall from henceforth be printed, … unless … first approved of, and licensed …” John Milton (yes the famous poet) responded the following year by publishing an UNLICENSED speech opposed to any kind of prior restraint on the freedom to publish. In general, the English-speaking world and our Western-oriented allies have the greatest degree of press freedom that has ever existed in the history of the world.

THE INTERNET (AND WIKIPEDIA) OFFERS ULTIMATE FREEDOM

The advent of the Internet is the ultimate in freedom to publish without approval from "the authorities". Every day, millions of ordinary people post to Blogs like this one that nearly everyone in the world can read if they choose to. No licensing, no prior restraint by the government! Of course, if the information is libelous, injured parties can sue. If it is a matter of diffference of opinion, opponents are free to publish their own rebuttal on the Internet.

So, back to the ban on academic citations of Wikipedia and other online sources. Why does the academic elite think that books and magazines and newspapers published by established organizations are more reliable than Wikipedia? Well, they say, these organizations have editors and research staffs that act as "gatekeepers" to protect the truth. That is true, but it is also true that most of these gatekeepers have similar opinions on controversial topics. Would you make the Pope and priests the sole gatekeepers for religious information as Pope Innocent III wanted? If not, why would you put elite academics in charge of information about history and politics and similar topics where opinion and fact are not easy to separate?

I think Wikipedia, pound for pound, has a greater truth content than The New York Times. Yes, anyone can edit items into Wikipedia, but, if false information is edited into an item about an important topic, there are far many more people who are prepared to edit it out and make sure it is correct. Wikipedia has a system of voluntary reviewers. If an item is challenged, the author is given an opportunity to correct it and, if he or she fails to do so, there is a review and voting process that can delete the material. Corrections thus appear in hours or days. How long does it take to correct something in a book or magazine?

Wikipedia has Google-backed competition in the form of Google Knols (where a Knol is a bit of knowledge). Again, anyone may post Knol topics, but, unlike Wikipedia, authors must identify themselves. I have published 11 Knols that, in total, garnered nearly 17,000 page views as of a month ago.

As many of you know, I teach an online graduate course in System Engineering. I encourage my students to use online sources as wll as traditional published materials. I actually prefer online sources because it makes it easier for me to detect and prove plagiarism. When I see a phrase or sentence I do not think a particular student has written, and if it is not in quote marks with a proper citation, I do a Google on the phrase, using quote marks at either end. If I get a direct hit, I look to see if the rest of the sentence or paragraph is also copied, and, if so, I have positive proof of violation of the Academic Integrity policy of the university.

Ira Glickstein

Let them Build the 9/11 Mosque at Ground Zero

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

No doubt the group funding the proposed "Cordoba House" mosque and Islamic cultural center two blocks from the sacred 9/11 Ground Zero site are being intentionally provocative and disingenuous regarding their main motivation.

There are a thousand more suitable sites in Manhattan that would be just as convenient for promotion of Islamic worship and culture.

Currently, we don't know if the funding comes from a foreign source and what the real interests and policies are behind this poke in the eye for New Yorkers in general and victims of 9/11 and their families and friends in particular.

Yes, all the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims. Yes, they used Islamic religious principles to justify their actions. Yes, some Muslims in the US and many worldwide cheered as the World Trade Center Towers came tumbling down, killing some 3000 innocent civilians at the New York site, along with many others at the Pentagon and in the other 9/11 aircraft.

Yes, our righteous indignation over this terrorist attack on the US mainland justified our military response, resulting in the deaths of additional thousands of our best and bravest young men and women as well as those of our allies. Yes, nearly all terrorists worldwide are Muslims who use their religion to justify their actions. They martyr themselves in the belief they will ascend immediately to paradise for all sorts of rewards their religion denies them here on Earth.

I have received many e-mails from relatives and friends with links to websites that are in opposition to the buillding of this 9/11 mosque. Most, while understandably passionate, are well-reasoned in their arguments. Unfortunately, some cross the line into outright religious bigotry, even trivializing the Holocaust by violating Godwin's Law. (I favor Dennis Miller's version: Don't call someone a Nazi unless they have croaked at least a million people.)

ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROPOSITION

Some of the 9/11 victims were innocent Muslims at work in the World Trade Towers. Nearly all American Muslims were and are as enraged as you and me about the attack.

I personally hope the backers of the new mosque and Islamic cultural center find a more appropriate location. But, I do not support those who would twist the "historic building" laws to prevent the former Burlington Coat Factory from being torn down. Official permitting and other government oversight must be neutral to religion unless it can be shown that the new facility will be involved in recruiting additional terrorists. Freedom of religion is part of what makes the US the greatest country in the world and makes me proud to be a citizen.

Let us not battle darkness with more darkness, but rather with light!

Here is a good CNN video on the topic.

Here is what New York's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, said in a recent radio address:

“If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t. I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to on that piece of property build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming. And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it too. What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody and I just- you know, if we are so afraid of something like this, what does it say about us? Democracy is stronger than this. You know, the ability to practice your religion is the- was one of the real reasons America was founded. And for us to say no is just, I think, not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it.”

Here is a link to the site run by backers of Cordoba House, where they say, in part:

"Why the Cordoba House?

"Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.

"This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by universal values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

"The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide."

Yes, of course I know in many Islamic countries it is currently illegal to build a church or synagogue in certain locations, and, if you do build one it must not be higher that any nearby mosque, and must not display a cross or a star of David, etc. Not too long ago (and perhaps even today) there were similar restrictions on the design and permission for building synagogues in parts of Christian Europe. All the more reason to demonstrate American Exceptionalism! If the backers of Cordoba House insist on their right to build what they want where they want, LET THEM DO IT so long as the design and construction meets the same standards applied to any other similar building in New York City.

Ira Glickstein

Jackson or Ayatolahs

[From Joel] There is a certain irony in the fact that between Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson's deaths, there is almost a complete blackout of news from or discussion about Iran. At a crucial moment in history, one has to wonder about whether the fundamental premise of the mullahs is right. That premise (as relayed to me by an Egyptian colleague) is that men are dogs and need a strong leash to prevent them from descending into degeneracy. While Iranian students try to wrest a bit of personal freedom from their government, we see that the worship of pop icons move them off center stage. In the end will the death of Michael Jackson do more to muzzle the revolution in the streets of Teheran than the shutting down of the internet? Is humanity doomed to oscillate between slavery and liberty, neither of which they can handle? Were Plato and Aristotle right about the impossibility of sustained democracy? With respect -Joel

Is Revolutionary Technology Disruptive in a Positive Sense?

The photo depicts Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as being frightened by a (computer) mouse - a metaphor for the computer and internet technology currently being used to protest the sham election.

We usually speak of "revolutionary" technology in a purely technological sense - a new hardware or software device that radically changes how we work or entertain ourselves. We call unexpected innovations that improve a product or service and disturb markets "disruptive technology".

Technological advances have changed history, mostly in a positive direction, at least since the invention of moveable type printing in 1439 by Johannes Gutenberg, a German goldsmith. That invention, some 600 years ago, led to an unprecedented era of political change that has greatly increased standards of living, freedom, and liberty we residents of the Earth enjoy. Each of us owes his or her freedom to Gutenberg and others who have invented and used revolutionary technology to enhance the power of the people.

Martin Luther used the printing press to further the Protestant Reformation. People with revolutionary ideas have managed to get the word out despite attempts by the Pope and others to license the printing press.

Censorship in the Soviet bloc was evaded by "Samizdat", a Russian pun for "self, by oneself publishing", where free thinking individuals used typewriten carbon copies, xerox copies, and audio tapes to pass along forbidden materials. Fax technology allowed written materials to be transmitted by ordinary telephones and that has been used to organize revolutionary activities.

Personal computers and printers made it easier for individuals to create revolutionary writings and distribute them via floppy discs or telephone modems.

Of course, the invention of the internet and the World Wide Web has eclipsed all the previous revolutionary technology! Despite attempts by oppressive governments to stiffle dissent and filter internet content, ingenious individuals have found ways to get around these limitations of freedom.

Today, in Iran, the free-thinking dissidents are using the latest communications media, blogs, Flickr, Twitter and cell phone photos and videos to bypass official limitations on communications. Good luck to them!

Ira Glickstein

PS: See Guardians at the Gates are Gone - Freedom of the Press !!! and the links in the right-hand column under the "Freedom" image. Today in the US and most of the rich world, anyone can publish a blog or a "print on demand" book that anyone in the world can access - with no need for official approval or even an agent.

Dreams Come True

<= This photo was posted to this Blog on Independence Day 2007.

Who suspected we would witness the inauguration of a black American, Barack Obama, as President less than two years later?

In that posting I quoted President Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address looking back to the founding of our Nation "Four score and seven years ago ..." and added:

"It is now eleven score and eleven years and our flag still flies proudly. Despite our many problems, we remain the last best hope for the crazy proposition free men and women can govern themselves. We are honored to live in the country with the highest degree of freedom, the widest availability of opportunity, and the greatest prosperity that has ever existed in the history of the world."

One-hundred years after Lincoln, in 1963, Martin Luther King gave his "I have a dream" speech including the memorable "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

How far we have come! In my own lifetime I personally witnessed "Negroes" required to move to the back of an interstate Greyhound bus as we crossed the Maryland border on the way from New York City to Washington DC. As a child I was appalled by "White Only" and "Colored" toilets in the South.

But, we have not come as far as I would like. We are still far, far, far from "colorblind". All the celebrations this week have focussed on Obama's skin color to a far greater extent than the content of his character.

Of course, we will always notice things like skin tone and eye color and gender and height and so on, but I long for the day when our regard for skin color falls to the level of emphasis we devote to other physical characteristics. Perhaps the historic events of this week will get us closer to MLK's dream come true.

Ira Glickstein

Guardians at the Gates are GONE - Freedom of the Press!!!

There have always been "guardians at the gates" preventing free access to the "press" - until now!

Prior to the invention of printing, books were manually copied by scribes and only the established church or kings or writers with rich patrons could afford to publish their books in multiple copies.

The first printed books had their letters manually carved into blocks of wood, a very labor-intensive and therefore expensive process. That effectively blocked most writers from publishing in multiple copies.

Even after the invention of movable type around 1450 by Gutenberg books were still quite expensive and limited in quantity. For example, fewer than 200 copies of the famous Gutenberg Bible were ever printed.

Since then, printing has become less and less expensive and the quantity of books published has greatly expanded.


THE BAD NEWS

However, Freedom of the Press was more a goal than a reality. Many governments own and control all newspapers and other media or impose various restrictions and censorship on privately-owned media. Most of these repressive governments restrict the distribution of publications from abroad.

Even in countries where the media is free, there are economic and ideological barriers to publication of unpopular viewpoints and/or new, unproven authors.

Until recently, the cost of setting a book in type was prohibitive. Publishers would not invest the tens- or hundreds of thousands of dollars required to set up, print, distribute, and publicize a new book unless they were sure they could sell thousands or tens of thousands of copies. To get a book published via the normal route you must first find an established agent, which is not an easy task. Then, the agent must find a publisher who is willing to invest the cash required up front.

Even self-publishing has been expensive until recently. For example, my brother self-published a book about public speaking about ten years ago and he had to front nearly ten-thousand dollars for his first run of a few thousand books. Fortunately for him, his book was eventually picked up by Random House and is now available on Amazon and other major bookseller websites. But, that is not the norm at all. Most self-published books go nowhere and the authors are left with boxes of unsold books.

Indeed even the yet-to-be famous Henry David Thoreau had this experience in 1853. In his journal he "brags" that he has "a library of nearly nine hundred volumes, over seven hundred of which I wrote myself." Those 700 were copies of his "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers" that he published at his own expense. Fewer than 300 of the original 1000 printed had been sold or given away and he was stuck with the remainder.

Ideological bias by the journalistic and publishing industry is also a factor preventing "freedom of the press" from being actualized. People who go into these professions tend to have leftist biases and may therefore not recognize, or not want to popularize, views that may differ from their own. Most media are concentrated in a few large cities and many who work there are totally unaware of how the rest of us think.

BUT THERE IS GOOD NEWS !!!

The advent of the Internet has leveled the playing field to a large extent. Certainly fewer people will read this TVPClub Blog than will read the Drudge Report or the New York Times, but, at least, anyone in the free world can easily click and read either.

And, remember the Drudge Report started in the kitchen of a strange guy Keith Olbermann called "an idiot with a modem". It is now viewed by three MILLION visitors a month and earns massive advertizing bucks for Matt Drudge! (I look at it almost every day, sometimes multiple times per day.)

DRASTIC CHANGES TO ECONOMICS OF BOOK PUBLISHING - HOORAY !!!

Modern technology has only recently allowed a drastic change in the economics of book publishing.

The first change occurred about a decade ago and I call it "the Kinko' Book". I wanted to have copies of my PhD Dissertation to give to family members and friends and students. So, since it was already a word-processor document on my PC, I printed it out and took it to Kinkos where they copied and spiral-bound it into a nice booklet for about $20 a copy for a couple-dozen copies. A few years later, after my dad passsed away, I also made Kinko Books of two sets of his writings to give to our children and his friends and relatives.

Kinko Books make sense if you are only going to need a few dozen copies. The books I made were letter-size and had color front and back covers with black and white insides. Although a Kinko Book cannot be confused with a professionally-published book, they cost about the same or more.

The second change is more exciting. With modern digital technology it is now almost as inexpensive to print a single copy of a professionally-bound book as it is per copy for a larger run. The new technology is called "print on demand" and there are several companies competing in this marketplace.

As many of you know, I published a free online novel a few months ago. Several of my friends and relatives expressed a desire for a printed version. I looked into it and found Lulu "Print on Demand" and have recently published my novel 2052-The Hawking Plan there. (The printed version is a much more tightly edited version of the online book.)

The economics are amazing! There is absolutely no set-up or up-front charge for the Author, no monthy charge for the Lulu "storefront" and no cost at all except for a per-copy charge, and, of course, shipping and handling (less than $4 for a single copy via USPS Media mail).

Right now, printed copies are available at 2052-The Hawking Plan. Within a couple of months, Lulu may be able to get Amazon and other major online sellers to list the book as well. (If you live in The Villages, FL area and would like to buy a copy, you can get one from me for the list price. $18 - "chai", and you won't have to pay the shipping and handling.)

If you have written anything, such as a family history, your personal journal, poetry, fiction or what-have-you, this is a great way to get a couple dozen professional-looking copies for your friends and family for a very reasonable price.

The "guardians at the gate" are gone! You do not need an agent. You do not need to find a publisher to put up the money for up-front costs. You do not need to pay those expenses yourself. You do not need to get the approval of the literary profession. You can DO IT YOURSELF and only pay for the copies you need.

Ira Glickstein