Belgium: on the side of closed systems

Considering Europe's most recent reaction to a closed system (Apple's iPod), this struck me as odd:

A Belgian court on Tuesday ordered [Google] to refrain from showing excerpts of articles from French- and German-language Belgian newspapers on Google News and Google's Web search site for Belgium, reaffirming an earlier ruling by the same court against the company.

[From "Google suffers setback in copyright case" by Elinor Mills at CNET news]

Obviously, Belgium isn't Norway, and music isn't news. But to me, their priorities should be reversed: news outlets should be looking for MORE exposure, not less. After all, as Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes commented:

"It is important to remember that both Google Web Search and Google News only ever show a few snippets of text," Reyes added. "If people want to read the entire story they have to click through to the Web publisher's site where the information resides. We believe search engines are of real benefit to publishers because they drive valuable traffic to their Web sites."

I'm usually pretty good at understanding points of view from outside the USA, but this one's got me stumped. And worried.

Granted, it's limited to Google Belgium. But isolationism is a slippery slope. Any intelligent person welcomes the opportunity to expose themselves to opinions other than their own, and on many topics that's becoming increasingly difficult here in the United States, where we seem more concerned with preaching to our respective choirs than engaging in dialog. That's the main benefit of something like Google News -- assembled by algorithm rather than editor, it provides a more neutral (although not necessarily more broad) choice.

Here's hoping that Belgium will reverse its opinion and embrace open propagation of information.

Supporting democracy... when it suits us

Here's a brilliant piece on Google video, from 1987: The Secret Government, by Bill Moyers. It's incredibly illuminating and still relevant today (if not MORE relevant). Moyer's conclusion:

"This remains for me the heart of the matter: the men who wrote our constitution, our basic book of rules, were concerned that power be held accountable. No part of government, and no person in government, not even the president, was to pick or choose among the laws to be obeyed. But how does one branch of government blow the whistle on another, or how do the people cry "foul" when their liberties are imperiled, if public officials can break the rules, lie to us about it, and then wave the wand of National Security to silence us? Can it happen again? You bet it can."

It's only 22 minutes long, and available for download.

Nostalgic patriotism

Is it possible to be nostalgic for something you've never experienced? Nostalgia's probably the wrong word. In any event, my recent habit of trolling reddit for interesting things lead me this morning to this post at PZ Meyers' "Pharyngula" blog (I just took a look at the main page, and MAN it's easy to get distracted there).

But the point is that I got my atheist dander up and I need to rant.

First, let's address the whole "In God we trust" thing. According to the US Treasury website, "The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War." This is understandable. People often turn to belief in times of danger ("there are no atheists in foxholes" -- but please note, I don't mean to imply that fear is the only reason people have belief; simply that it can be a strong motivator for anyone on the fence).

The addition of the motto to paper money was almost a century later, shortly after the hatemongering McCarthy era* (see the same US Treasury page). This is pure speculation on my part, but I would guess that it was an effort to further draw the line between us and the "godless communists". My point is that although "In God we trust" is currently ingrained in our national identity (or at least our national fiscal identity), it hasn't always been that way.

In fact, the founding fathers, and our country's early days, were practically the opposite of what the Christian Right would have us believe. An article reposted at Skeptically.org goes into a good bit of detail (they attribute it to "Steven Morris, in Free Inquiry, Fall, 1995" -- but curiously, Free Inquiry's online archive lists contents for that issue but not that article) -- but the most significant to me is this gem:

"The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.' The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers."

UNANIMOUSLY approved.

Further reading, including detailed research into the treaty's intent, can be found at StephenJayGould.org.

The upshot of this is that I'm fiercely proud of my country's origins but disgusted by its current state. I guess I should start flying the original Star-Spangled Banner.

* Note: many of the pages I came across suggested that the motto on paper money was adopted "during the McCarthy era" -- but considering that McCarthy was censured by the senate in 1954 and died in office in '57, I wouldn't call that fair.