Loren Collins for Congress

On the state level, Sonny Perdue has pledged that he will completely eliminate the state income tax for the retirement income of Georgians 65 and older in his second term. "By not having to pay state income taxes, retirees can better cover the costs of prescription drugs and healthcare, or spend more time with their grandchildren," he says.

While not a federal issue, this pledge is a good case study in interest groups and campaign promises. What reason is there to exempt Georgians over 65 from paying the same taxes as Georgians under 65?

For instance, why not exempt Georgians under 25?

"By not having to pay state income taxes, students can better cover the costs of college and rent, and avoid falling into early debt."

Or Georgians who are parents of young children?

"By not having to pay state income taxes, parents can better cover the costs of raising children or buying their first home, or spend more time with their children."

Note that those are all big costs in life, but ones that retirees are less likely to have. Every stage in life carries its own special financial burden, a burden which would be greatly alleviated through an exemption from having to pay taxes. So why give the exemption to one group of taxpayers but not another? Are prescription drugs that much more important than higher education and child-rearing?

A few years ago, there was a proposal to exempt teachers from paying the income tax. It gained some support; after all, who doesn't want to help teachers? But if teachers are exempted, why not police officers? Surely their work is at least as important. What about firefighters, or emergency medical personnel? Nurses? Doctors? Scientists? Artists? Or any number of other jobs that make our lives a little better. Should they all be exempted, or should we just single out one group for special treatment?

Singling out a group is, after all, the essence of a special interest. "Group X" wants to be treated just a little bit differently from everybody else. A deduction, an exemption, a favor. The AJC reported this week on the number of sales tax exemptions in Georgia; the result of tax exemptions is that the necessary revenue has to be collected through higher taxes elsewhere. Similarly, exempting a whole sector of Georgia's population from paying state income taxes means either that state services are cut or that the taxes of everyone else go up. Of course, "I pledge to raise the share of taxes paid by Georgians under 65" isn't the way Sonny's camp spins it.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had an article in today's paper on the Fourth District race, which unfortunately did not mention yours truly. Rather, the article was about how the race is "off the radar" and "interest in the 4th is minimal." I posted the other day that the Atlanta Press Club won't be hosting a debate, and the article confirms that WSB won't be hosting one either.

I want to revive some interest to this race, and I believe I can do so, given the opportunity. Over at Facebook.com, I continue to maintain a support rating of over 12%, even though the only other third party candidate listed for Georgia, Garrett Hayes, is only at 5.6%. Catherine Davis herself is only at 22%. For an independent candidate, much less a write-in, 12% is a great number. This tells me that there are voters who like me and my platform; it is merely a matter of reaching the eyes of ears of other voters.

The article noted that although there are no televised debates for the Fourth District race, there are three candidate forums scheduled, as listed below. I will be attending all three. If the sponsors permit me, I will participate as a candidate. They have absolutely nothing to lose by opening the door to all qualified candidates in this race, including myself.

October 9
Time: 1 to 2 pm
Where: Georgia Perimeter College,
Decatur campus
Building C
3251 Panthersville Road, Decatur

October 12
Time: 7 to 9 pm
Where: Calvin Fitchett Municipal Complex
Lilburn City Hall, 76 Main St., Lilburn

October 30
Time: 7 to 9 pm
Where: Hellenic Community Center,
2500 Clairmont Road, Atlanta
Sponsored by the Civic Association Network

Professor Steven Bainbridge, law professor at UCLA, recently has this to say about the party politics of this November's election:

"I suspect there are a growing number of folks who agree with me that the Republicans deserve to lose, but the Democrats don't deserve to win. For us, it would be a great year for a "none of the above option."

If only there were some other option in some of these Congressional races. Some way to express one's dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, without necessarily siding with the Democratic Party. Some sort of third candidate that voters could turn to and support.

But where could voters in Georgia's Fourth Congressional District possibly find such a option?

Ms. McKinney's murder conspiracies aren't limited to political figures, either. In this interview, she implicates the government in the "murders" of not only Martin Luther King Jr., but also Tupac Shakur, Christopher "Biggie Smalls" Wallace, Paul Robeson, Jimi Hendrix, and Bob Marley.

(Bob Marley, it should be noted, died of cancer. So presumably Ms. McKinney believes that the government gave him cancer.)

She's open to bizarrely minor conspiracies too. Here she alleges that the Congressional record was edited to remove her use of the word "impeachment," in a speech from just over a year ago. But if you do a simple CTRL-F search, you'll see that the word is in the text that she herself quotes.

Finally, no piece on Ms. McKinney and conspiracy theories would be complete without some citation to 9/11. However, rather than point to her infamous radio comments, I'm going to share something that I don't believe any media outlet ever picked up on.

On September 10, 2004, Cynthia McKinney hosted the "9/11 Citizens’ Commission" hearings. One of the speakers was Michael Ruppert, creator of From the Wilderness, and probably the most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorist on the web. Ms. McKinney introduced Mr. Ruppert as her "dear friend," and told the audience that what he had to say was going to "knock your socks off." Mr. Ruppert took to the podium and said the following (emphasis added):

"[My book] Crossing the Rubicon provides amply documented evidence with which to initiated and sustain a number of indictments of top level government officials for their roles in facilitating the attacks of 9/11. Most notably as my chief suspect I name Vice President Richard Cheney as both a planner and executor of those attacks."

This was followed by cheers and applause from the audience. Later in his speech he states:

"I am certain, I am absolutely certain that Richard Cheney was not only a planner in the attacks but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate command and control and communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the National Military Command Center, that’s the Pentagon, or the White House situation room."

Are your socks still on? And if you don't believe the printed quotes, then watch the video.

Here, also, is a photo of interest:



This photo is from Ms. McKinney's 9/11 hearings at the Congressional Black Caucus on September 23, 2005. In the background of the photograph are the smiling faces of Michael Ruppert and Cynthia McKinney. In the foreground is David Ray Griffin, a retired theology professor who is one of the leading proponents of the argument that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed via a planned controlled internal demolition. In other words, this is Ms. McKinney with two of America's most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists, at a hearing that she sponsored.

For further citation, you can consult the transcript or the vidoe of Griffin's speech, wherein he argues for the federal government's participation in 9/11, including blowing up the WTC with explosives.

In all, that's the bulk of Ms. McKinney's conspiratorial leanings, or at least the more interesting ones I discovered.

One of the handful of bills that Cynthia McKinney introduced during the last two years was H.R. 2554, which would create the Martin Luther King, Jr. Records Collection Act.

If elected, I would join as a cosponsor of this bill (assuming it doesn't pass during this Congress). If it has to be reintroduced, I would reintroduce it. I am firmly in favor of open and transparent government, and I see no reason why government records regarding King should remain classified almost 40 years after his death. They certainly should not remain classified and away from the public eye until 70 years afterward.

However, my reasons for supporting this bill appear to be different than Ms. McKinney's. Whereas I think the MLK records should be released simply because of the public's right to open government, Ms. McKinney's first interest appears to be that their release would lend credence to her favored conspiracy theories. On her House website, she has this page on the bill, and it begins:

"The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968 remains an unsolved case. The Final Report of a 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that their was a probably conspiracy behind Dr. King's assassination. Further, a civil suit brought by the King family resulted in a ruling that concluded that there was a conspiracy reaching to the highest levels of government and military intelligence agencies."

I would label this conspiracy talk, but as she uses the word "conspiracy" twice, that seems redundant.

The 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations looked at both the JFK and MLK murders. Its conclusion was that James Earl Ray was the assassin of Dr. King, and that he utilized his 30.06 rifle from the infamous bathroom window. The part that Ms. McKinney is referring to is this finding:

"The committee believes, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available to it, that there is a likelihood that James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King as a result of a conspiracy."

Which is subsequently followed by:

"No Federal, State or local government agency was involved in the assassination of Dr. King."

Note that that conclusion is exactly the opposite of the "conspiracy reaching to the highest levels of government and military intelligence agencies" she cites next. The civil suit she relies on is rather fascinating, being perhaps the worst civil trial I've ever seen. Basically, you had the Kings' attorney arguing that a man named Loyd Jowers played a major role in a massive conspiracy to kill Dr. King that involved all levels of government, while Jowers' defense attorney argued to the jury that Loyd Jowers had only played a minor role in a massive conspiracy to kill Dr. King that involved all levels of government.

Not surprisingly, after 14 days of trial, the jurors declared that there had been a conspiracy. Which wasn't terribly surprising, considering that nobody at the trial had ever argued that there wasn't a conspiracy, or disputed any of the claims presented. The judge allowed ridiculous amounts of inadmissible evidence, including the videotaped deposition of an anonymous witness.

This is the kind of evidence that Ms. McKinney apparently considers reliable and trustworthy.

Cynthia McKinney was defeated in last month's primary, but she will continue to serve as the Representative of the Fourth District until January. Furthermore, today is the DVD release of the documentary American Blackout, which will likely receive a certain amount of media attention.

For that reason, I thought I'd take the time to share some material I had researched in anticipation of running against Ms. McKinney in the general election. Specifically, material about her predilection for conspiracy theories. While Ms. McKinney's statements regarding 9/11 became a media sensation, many other conspiratorial positions she's taken have long flown under the public's, and the Fourth District's, radar.

Due to the rather voluminous amount of material, I've chosen to split this across three posts. Despite this, don't expect future posts on Ms. McKinney, unless something truly newsworthy happens. She is not my opponent in this race, and my attention is now focused elsewhere. But the research is complete, timely, and worth sharing nonetheless, as she is a sitting Congresswoman with a movie hitting shelves.

Four years ago, Cynthia McKinney gave a speech at a reception for the Congressional Black Caucus. Very near the beginning of that speech, she said the following:

"And finally, COINTELPRO II: The Murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. where we learned that there really are linkages between the murders of JFK, MLK, and RFK. And that the COINTELPRO process was "to neutralize" the black leader--in the words of the CIA--assassinate, and then replace that leader with someone whose skin color was black, but whose loyalty was to their plan and not us."

COINTELPRO specifically refers to an old FBI program called the Counter Intelligence Program intended to investigate radical dissident organizations. Back in the 1960s, according to internal FBI documents, the list of suspect organizations was made to include Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

"COINTELPRO II," however, does not refer to a particular FBI program. It is not a term that is used by the government or the press, and appears to have been coined by critics of certain FBI and government practices. I had difficulty in determining what Ms. McKinney was referring to, but I finally learned that she was citing a panel she had hosted the previous day.

Specifically, she appears to be referencing the material presented by Panelist VII, John Judge. As described in the panel literature, "John Judge is an author, historian, and researcher and has spent the past twenty-six years examining the history of the Cold War, U.S. intelligence agencies, etc. As an avid investigator into the Kennedy Assassination, John Judge found links between the characters, assassins, funding and operations in the subsequent murders of Robert F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and numerous other public figures and eye witnesses to the killings."

John Judge is also one of McKinney's staff members in Washington D.C. So her source in making this accusation was her own staff assistant.

With regard to the second sentence, Ms. McKinney quoted words come from this memo by J. Edgar Hoover. Read it for yourself to see the context of "neutralize." Personally, I think interpreting the word as "assassinate" doesn't fit at all in the context of the memo, on top of the fact that it seems odd to claim that the FBI was using CIA lingo.

And to reiterate perhaps the central line of that passage, Ms. McKinney did indeed say "there really are linkages between the murders of JFK, MLK, and RFK."

My second campaign commercial is up on YouTube. It's another bargain-basement ad, but once again I tied it in to the ad's subject material: the federal budget deficit and how the Republicans and Democrats have handled it.

The Georgia flag is a state issue, and not one that has any bearing on Congress. However, it is a subject still affects some Georgia voters (as evidenced in an article in today's AJC). More importantly for me, it is a topic I have previously written on.

During my time at UGA Law School, I wrote a column for the student paper The Red & Black on the subject of the Confederacy. With so much talk about Southern pride and what the CSA stood for, I thought the time was ripe for some actual research.

Entitled The Truth in the Story of Secession, my column drew from the writings and saying of various Confederate leaders to illustrate that the primary motivating factor behind the creation of the CSA was, in fact, slavery. For all the talk I had always heard about the South fighting against an oppressive North, but the only states' right that truly motivated secession was the right to own slaves. I still admire my ancestors for fighting for what they believed to be a just cause, but the truth is that the politicos of the day really did have slavery as their primary interest.

Here is my column in its entirety. Through the link above you can read the sources I drew from:

-----

I am a seventh-generation Georgian. The South, and Georgia in particular, is and always will be my home. As such, the legacy of the Confederacy has long been prominent in my life. My hometown, Stone Mountain, is the site of the world's largest Confederate memorial. My ancestors were rebel soldiers. I grew up believing that the Civil War was about states' rights and Southern pride, and that successive generations were responsible for perverting the image of the Confederacy. I was wrong. The truth is found in the words of the Confederate leaders themselves.

The clearest elicitation of the Confederate motivation was provided by CSA Vice-President Alexander Stephens in his "Corner-Stone Speech" of March 21, 1861. What caused the South to secede from the Union? "[O]ur peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our civilization, - was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." He further explained that the Confederacy's "foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon this great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Stephens was more succinct in an 1866 diary entry reflecting upon that same speech: "Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession."

Confederate President Jefferson Davis confirmed this intent. His Congressional compromise proposal of December 1860, offered to avert secession, consisted entirely of a Constitutional Amendment to protect slavery forever. In his first message to the Confederate congress, shortly after Fort Sumter, he reflected upon the circumstances that led to secession, and cited only slavery as motivation.

On December 7, 1860, Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown delivered an open letter to the people of Georgia, endorsing secession solely because of the threat of abolition. He said that Georgians "can never again live in peace with the Northern abolitionists, unless we can have new constitutional guarantees, which will...effectually stop the discussion of slavery in Congress." Since slavery was widely seen as benefiting only the rich, half of the letter was devoted to persuading poor non-slaveholding whites to support secession. "May our kind Heavenly Father avert the evil, and deliver the poor from such a fate," he prayed, after warning of the various consequences if blacks were made their equals.

Not unlike the Declaration of Independence's enumeration of the King's offenses, four states issued declarations of causes, formally explaining their reasons for seceding. Each identified slavery as its motivation. Georgia's began "The people of Georgia [present] the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." Mississippi was the most blunt: "[I]t is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world."

Page after page of Confederate speeches, letters, and documents repeatedly identified slavery as the impetus for secession. They ooze with racist rhetoric. This is but a sampling.

The Confederate legacy was not corrupted by later generations; it was corrupt from the start. Secessionists advanced numerous Constitutional arguments about the importance of states' rights, but the "right" to own black people wholly dominated the discourse, and was the only states' right that actually instigated secession. Slavery was the self-confessed "immediate cause" of the Confederacy, and black inferiority was its founding "corner-stone."

To criticize the Confederacy is not to demean Southern heritage, for there is far more to the South than the Confederacy. Southerners have produced copious amounts of great literature and art. Southerners pioneered jazz, bluegrass, gospel, and country music. And we have the best American cuisine by far. There is much to be proud of as a Georgian and as a Southerner. But there is only shame in the legacy of the Confederate States of America.

Although its name might suggest otherwise, Students for Saving Social Security is an organization of young Americans who support the idea of choice and freedom when it comes to Social Security.

I have previously written about their candidate survey, and earlier this month I shared my own answers.

I'm happy to report that as of now, I am the only one of the Georgia Congressional candidates to have submitted any answers to their survey.

"Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt."

- Herbert Hoover (attributed)

(Found via SecureOurFuture.org)

I contacted the Atlanta Press Club to ask what I would have to do to merit inclusion in the Fourth District debate next month. They responded that they do not allow write-in candidates to participate.

However, the point is somewhat moot, as I have learned that they will not be hosting a 4th District debate at all this year.

I am presently trying to learn whether a Congressional debate might be hosted by one of the local news stations.

Firstly, A co-worker of mine has set up a Facebook group to support my campaign:

Vote Loren Collins for Congress!!!

If you're a Facebook member, please consider joining, as well as choosing the 'Support this Candidate' feature for my profile.

Secondly, there is a feature on Facebook's Election 2006 section entitled Election Pulse, which shows support for candidates among Facebook users. I am not certain how the numbers are reached, but for the most part, they mirror what I anticipate the November returns to look like. The only two candidates included who are not Democrats or Republicans are myself and gubernatorial candidate Garrett Hayes.

And surprisingly, the Pulse currently has me at 10.75%. Whether or not this number is realistic, I find it incredibly heartening and encouraging.

A (highly unscientific) poll on my Congressional 1040 Act found that about 2/3 of the people polled liked the idea of requiring Congressmen to do their own tax returns.

Seeing that support spurred me to create a Facebook Campaign Issues page for the proposal: Members of Congress Should Have to Prepare Their Own Taxes. Please join if you support it too.

I also found a Washington Times article on the subject, from just a few months ago. It states that "Three of the four top lawmakers on the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees, which are in charge of writing tax laws, pay a professional to prepare their annual tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service." In addition, one Senator observes that no one can apparently recall the last time a member of the Senate Finance Committee prepared his own tax return.

That's like a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation having no idea how the internet and e-commerce works. Practical ignorance does not make for good law.

The Secretary of State's Qualifying Candidate Database has been updated with the names of all the persons who qualified to be write-in candidates. The full list is here, in PDF format.

There are an even dozen write-in candidates, including four for U.S. Congress. Two of those four, myself (District 4) and William Satterwhite (District 11), are running under the Bull Moose Party banner.

I attempted to locate online presences for the other ten write-in candidates, but I found websites for only three.

Al Bartell - Lt. Governor

Mike Crane - State Senate, District 51

Woody Holmes - State Senate, District 65

I also learned that William Arth (Governor) and Eleanor Garcia (U.S. Congress, District 5) are running under the banner of the Socialist Workers Party. It's worth noting that Ms. Garcia is John Lewis' only opposition this year, in either the primary or the general election.

A commenter on my other blog asked my opinion of such economists as James K. Galbraith, who say that Social Security is stable and is not in danger.

I find Mr. Galbraith's arguments rather unpersuasive. He's right in saying that the feds can't default on paying something, but he subsequently admits that the funding for such payments is still going to come out of my pocket, whether in the form of payroll or income or some other tax.

His proposal of using the estate tax as a patch is particularly odd coming from an economist. Social Security benefits for 2006 will run approximately $539 billion. In 2000, the estate tax brought in a mere $27 billion. If that's supposed to cover "much of the shortfall," then he's assuming a rather small shortfall.

He simply disagrees with the Trustees' and CBO's estimates of when SS will exhaust its trust fund, which is currently within a couple of years of when I reach the age to recoup. Adopting a 'wait and see' approach is not something I favor when I'm staring at forty years of payments ahead of me.

Most importantly, he doesn't even attempt to address what I consider to be the two most important aspects of Social Security reform: 1) the return the taxpayer gets on his money, and 2) the freedom for a person to do with his earnings as he chooses. Even if it could continue to pay out piddly monthly checks indefinitely, Social Security still deprives every working American of 10% of the fruit of his labor.

When Social Security was a 2% tax, it was tolerable. When it was 5%, a taxpayer could grin and bear it. At 10%, though, its cost simply outweighs its benefits. The opportunity costs alone are huge.

Twelve years ago, Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America were largely responsible for helping the Republican Party to pull off perhaps the biggest shift in American political power recent memory. Unfortunately, the Republicans have lost sight of those same ideals that got them into office (more on that in a future post). I had hoped that at least Newt had held strong, but I'm no longer as certain.

Newt recently shared a new set of policy proposals dubbed "The American Eleven: A Values-Led Plan for Victory in November",. The other Collins running for Congress from Georgia seems to give it the thumbs up.

I, on the other hand, find myself disappointed on the whole with Newt's new list of priorities. Some are good, but some are trivial, and others I flat-out disagree with.

Let's start at the beginning. The first of the Contract With America's ten major proposals was "A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility." A high-priority and serious issue, which resonates with many Americans and which is grounded in conservative thought.

The first proposal in Newt's new agenda? "Make English the Official Language of Government." Meanwhile, balancing the budget finds itself relegated to #8. I'm not opposed to the idea of an official language, but it is far from America's #1 priority.

#2 is "Control the Borders." I think most people would agree, simply because that's just a vague proposal. Controlling the borders is an end, not a policy. Newt is saying little more than "pass an immigration bill."

#3 is "Keep God in the Pledge." Even though I agree with the sentiment, this best illustrates the difference between this new agenda and the Contract With America. The CoA was about major reforms; this is a mere proposal to enforce the status quo. A status quo, it should be noted, that has significant bipartisan support, and which has so far been "threatened" by a single lawsuit that was eventually dismissed. The fact that this made #3 on Newt's list concerns me that Newt is short on valuable legislative ideas.

Newt finally gets around to some defined policy policies with serious merit in #4-8, and 10. Whether you agree with them or not, at least they are big ideas on par with the CoA. So they get a pass for now.

"Tie Education Funding to Teacher Accountability" is #9. In the 1990s, the Republicans proposed eliminating or shrinking the federal Department of Education in order to cut a layer of bureaucracy and spending in our educational system. Now, Newt Gingrich is proposing greater federal influence over local schools. The party has all but switched sides on the issue.

#11 makes a good point, but it's out of place on this list. Foreign policy is primarily an executive power to start with, and saying that Congress should "hold hearings on the scale of the Iranian and North Korean threat" doesn't have much punch.

So nearly half of Newt's 11 issues fall short. And those aren't the only problems.

There's a negative tone to Newt's "American Eleven" that I don't think belongs there. Lots of mentions of "elitists" and some significant demonizing of Nancy Pelosi. The Contract with America was pitched more positively; there was a greater attitude of "This is what we have to offer" rather than "You don't want what the other guy has in store."

That's merely a complaint in presentation, but the other big problem is more troublesome. No fewer than three of Newt's issue proposals, including two of the 'good' ones I identified above, include claims for jurisdiction-stripping. #3, #6, and #10 all suggest that Congress should pass legislation and forbid the Supreme Court from reviewing it.

These types of proposals have become increasingly popular among Republican leaders during the last decade, but they are legally and philsophically disturbing. Forbidding Supreme Court review is not only an attempt to interfere with the traditional checks and balances of our federal government, but it opens the door to inconsistent and incompatible rulings from lower courts.

One function the Supreme Court serves is to bring legal certainty to an issue when lower courts reach differing outcomes. Newt suggests taking away the Supreme Court's ability to review the Pledge of Allegiance. So what happens if the 9th Circuit and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals declare it unconstitutional, and the other appeals courts find it constitutional? It means we have a Pledge that's constitutional in some parts of the country, but not in others. Does that really make for better law and public interests?

So in short, while it may have some good ideas, Newt's "American Eleven" serves better as an illustration of how much the Republican Party has changed than how much it's stayed the same.

With my copyright reform ad from earlier this week, it seems timely to share a little reading material for both halves of the issue, the public domain and fair use. Like I said before, it's a somewhat offbeat and obscure subject, so there's a lot of legislative abuse that the public isn't aware of.

The first is a resource I discovered a few months ago, and which I highly recommend:

Tales From the Public Domain: Bound By Law?

This is a comic book written by two Duke University law professors, and addresses America's copyright issues in a fairly balanced manner. It's easy to follow, and it's largely targeted at an audience that's unfamiliar with the issue. It is a fantastic, and interesting, visual exploration of a subject that would normally be rather dry in print. But in comic book format, it helps to ground the debate in real-world examples.

I have previously linked to the Statement of Copyright Law Professors Opposing Term Extension, which is signed by three UGA law professors, including my own Copyright professor, David Shipley (then with the University of Kentucky).

Their statement does a good job of explaining the purported reasons behind the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998, and why those reasons are full of holes. One particular excuse was Congress's claim that they were merely mirroring the copyright laws of the European Union, to which the professors offer a simple and eloquent response:

"But the mere fact that the European Union has adopted a bad idea does not mean that the United States should follow suit."

Finally, my Issues page on Copyright Reform provides some history of copyright extensions and how intellectual property coverage has grown over time, and offers up a reform proposal that I favor.

Speaking of press and publicity, a glance over at my opponents' websites shows no noticeable updates on either site during the entire last month. No news, no press releases, no announced stances since the run-off election. Neither candidate, I would like to note, has a campaign blog to connect and communicate with voters.

I imagine they've spent some of that time out at organized functions, meeting with certain constituents. Ms. Davis has at least listed the events she is attending (although the next event isn't for nearly a month), but Mr. Johnson's itinerary is nowhere to be found. I hope he does not intend to simply coast through November's election, as he accidentally suggested in his run-off victory speech.

Conversely, my focus to date has been directed towards digital communication, in the hopes of reaching more people early on. I plan to hit the campaign trail myself in the coming days, to better personally connect with voters at the election approaches. And I plan to maintain, and hopefully increase, my online communications.

The 4th District's first general election campaign ad has now been online for two days. What have I learned in that time?

- It has been viewed over 1100 times on YouTube. This blows away the numbers for any other Georgia campaign ads. It is also, at present, the 50th most-viewed People video on YouTube for today.

- A little bit of detective work provided me with the reason for this astonishing surge in popularity: I was Farked. The submitter wrote "Candidate for Congress tackles an issue that is really important, to four people," and labelled my ad 'Interesting.' I'll choose to be flattered.

- The average rating, based on twelve votes, is less than spectacular, unfortunately. Still, it provides me with some insight into the ad's reception, which is valuable. And as a definite plus, the one comment posted is rather positive.

- After some reflection, I have determined that the ad deserves one particular tweak that should improve it: the addition of a cheesy, public domain-esque soundtrack. So expect a modified version of the ad in the future.

Now let's see how I can do with my second ad.

This campaign now has its first campaign commercial, tackling the thrilling and sexy issue of...copyright reform.



Some points of mine regarding the ad:

- Yes, in case you were wondering, this is in fact the lowest-budget campaign commercial in the history of campaign commercials. It literally cost nothing to make, other than my time. When you lack money and/or party backing, you do what you can. I believe this demonstrates one of my strengths as a Congressional hopeful, as I learn to make the most of the resources I have.

- I also appreciate that my choice of topic for the ad is a little arcane and unusual for campaign season. Then again, the same could have been said of net neutrality a few months ago. I'm willing to stake out a position like this because it's an important issue, and not merely because it happens to be this year's hot topic, or because it tests well demographically. It's an issue that affects people, even if we don't often recognize it. And it's an area where I believe meaningful change is possible. That makes it worth talking about.

- I would like to note that, to date, neither of my opponents have aired or released any campaign commercials for the general election. That makes me, the write-in Bull Moose candidate, the first in this race to do so.

Last night I watched the 9/11 documentary on CBS, which focused on the firefighters of Ladder 1. There's nothing I can say that can add to the heroism and sacrifice of the men depicted in the film. The footage and the interviews speak for themselves.

In its final minutes, the documentary simply showed the photographs of all 343 NY firemen killed in the attack of 9/11. And that reminded me of the 9/11 editorial cartoon that touched me the most, coming from the pen of the AJC's Mike Luckovich:

I spent some time today improving the online presence of this campaign, as well as that of the Bull Moose Party.

Facebook has created an Election 2006 section for candidates, and I worked on my Facebook profile. I've added a link to the right sidebar. One function of Facebook is you can click to 'Support' a candidate. Please consider this as a simple and easy means of expressing your support for this campaign.

I also set up a Facebook 'Bull Moose Party' group for people to join.

I simultaneously set up a MySpace group for the Bull Moose Party.

Today, Slate.com posted the final installment of The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation, by Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón. It is, quite simply, a comic book treatment of the 9/11 Commission Report, adapting the 568-page book into a 130-page graphic novel.

I plan to devote some time over the weekend to reading it in its entirety, after which time I'll share my thoughts and reactions.

Yesterday was a good day for third parties. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that Ohio's election regulations unconstitutionally restricted ballot access for third parties. It was a minor party's first appellate win in a ballot access case since 1997.

You can read the court's full decision here.

And just as a means of further illustrating the ways that Democrats and Republicans attempt to silence third-party voices, I give you HR 4694, the "Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act" of 2006. Sponsored by nine Democrats in the House of Representatives, the bill would fully fund Congressional campaigns with public money.

But it would effectively only fund Democratic and Republican campaigns. The proposed rules for third parties were so stringent that they all but guaranteed that no third party would ever satisfy them. For instance, a third party would have to collect a massive number of signatures, but would not be allowed to pay petitioners to collect those signatures. Thus, the incumbent parties, who are already awash with contributions, allow for themselves to profit at public expense, but they do their best to make sure that no lesser party benefits as a result.

Thankfully, the bill appears to be dead at this time. But it demonstrates the protectionist attitude that the two major parties have against outside voices.

We're about to hit the 60-day mark before the November election, which means it's going to be two hard months of working to achieve name recognition and win votes. Thankfully, there are a number of websites that have already name-checked me, which is very valuable to a write-in candidate. My thanks to them all. Below are links to the websites, with asterisk links leading to the references themselves.

Singled Out:

AJC Political Insider, comment by Justin

budgie's squawks*

The Daily Pundit, comment by DrObviousSo

For Love of the Game*

Just My Random Thoughts*

Peach Pundit*

The Ziggurat of Doom*

Candidate Lists

anaTana*

Answers.com*

Campaigns Wikia*

DC Political Report*

dKosopedia**

Democratic Underground*

Georgia Political Digest*

Georgia Politics Unfiltered*

The Green Papers*

Help.com*

Kutztown University College Republicans*

Num Sum

Politics1*

Tommy's Room

USElections.com*

Voter Information Services*

Wikipedia**

On September 5, 1977, twenty-nine years ago today, the Voyager I spacecraft was launched. It is presently the farthest man-made object from Earth.

Among Voyager's cargo is a Golden Record that contains images and sounds of Earth, for the contingency that someone may one day discover the craft. Following greetings spoken in 55 languages, there is a selection of music representing cultures from around the world. It begins with Bach's Brandenburg Concerto #2, and includes, rather amusingly, "Johnny B. Goode" by Chuck Berry.

I have no political point to make here, on this inauspicious anniversary, beyond that of the simple feelings of the brotherhood of man that the thoughts of the record inspire. I merely thought it was interesting and worth sharing on the occasion.

That, and I would rather like to own an album of that music.

I recently discovered SecureOurFuture.org, the website of Students for Saving Social Security. The organization is a college-based effort to spur activism among America's young people on the issue of Social Security. It is my hope to participate in any Atlanta-area efforts they plan in the coming months.

One of their features is a short survey offered to this year's Congressional candidates. At this time, no ballot candidates from Georgia have responses posted.

However, I have submitted answers of my own. Their format is to print only Yes/No/Undecided for each candidate, but below are my full, and intentionally brief, responses:

1. Do you believe young people ought to be concerned about the future of Social Security?

Absolutely. Social Security is currently due to exhaust its trust fund in about 2042, precisely when today's young people will be nearing retirement age. I myself will turn 64 that year. Any reform that relies on higher taxes and/or reduced future benefits will be borne directly on the backs of today's young people and the next generation.

2. Do you think the next Congress should address Social Security reform?

Yes. It is imperative to address Social Security as soon as possible, because further delays will only make adequate reform more harsh and difficult. If serious reform had been undertaken during the Social Security crisis of the early 1980s, we wouldn't be facing another crisis today. Instead, they opted to temporarily patch the system, which merely served to delay and increase Social Security's inevitable money troubles.

3. Do you think the Social Security surplus should be reserved for Social Security?

Yes, but for reasons unrelated to Social Security itself. As appealing as this may sound, it is something of a red herring in the Social Security debate. The Social Security trust fund has never held cash; it holds government bonds. "Reserving" the Social Security surplus is a good means of attacking the federal government's deficit spending, which is why I support such a reservation, but it does nothing to solve Social Security's own budgetary crisis.

4. Do you support allowing young workers to save a portion of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts?

Yes. The Social Security tax rate has more than quintupled since its inception, and some have suggested that it be raised further still. Americans should have greater control over their own earnings and savings, not less.

The Contribution page is now active. It includes a prepared contribution form on which one can provide FEC mandated data.

I plan to make arrangements for Paypal donations, but for the moment, contributions can only be made by mail.