And yet, such is indeed the case: what unites US government and the WikiLeaks is their attitude to copyright — or, more precisely, their respective answer to the question “do the tools of exercising the copyright belong with the copyright itself, or can they be used separately?”

WikiLeaks clearly thinks that the latter is the case — and uses a tool of copyright, the internet, even though it has no copyright to the material itself. In WikiLeaks mind, the copyright and the exercise of its tools do not belong together; one party can have the copyright to the material, yet a different party can wield the tools to publish this material.

Which is precisely the position of the US government.

Consider this scenario. You wrote a book, and therefore have the copyright to it — the right to publish. Unwilling to go to a publisher because he will pocket two thirds of the profit, or because you have no connections, you decide to exercise your copyright and to publish your book yourself. How do you make the book trade — the libraries and bookstores — aware of your newly forthcoming book? For that, you need the government’s help — you need to add it to the Library of Congress’ catalog that provides subject keywords by which your book can be found by the interested parties. This is the key tool of exercising your copyright, since it makes your book visible in the marketplace.

Yet, if you publish your book yourself, the government denies you the use of this catalog, this essential tool of the copyright — even though you actually own the copyright itself. Only the bigger third-party publishers — the middlemen — are permitted its use, not the actual owners of copyright — the authors. Clearly, the government believes that the copyright and its tools do not belong together — and thus, it fully shares the WikiLeaks position and philosophy.

Taking the tools of the copyright away from the owners of the copyright locks the latter out of the mainstream marketplace of ideas, to the detriment of us all. If all could speak, rather than merely those with the connections, perhaps many problems that surfaced in government cables leaked by the WikiLeaks would have been solved through the free and public debate. But the government doesn’t want an open debate, and denies the key to the marketplace of ideas — the tools of copyright — to wider public. WikiLeaks, equally cavalier about the copyright, and sharing with the government the premise that tools of copyright do not belong with the copyright itself, now gave the government a taste of its own medicine — and published what the government — the copyright owner — does not want published.

So, evisceration of copyright turned out to be a double-edged sword. The very same principle of separating tools of the copyright from the copyright itself produced two very different outcomes: in one case, the authors who want their work present in the mainstream marketplace of ideas cannot place their books into it; yet in the other, the authors who would rather escape the limelight, now find themselves engulfed in it.

Solution? Let the copyright be copyright, so the tools of publishing (or of exercise of the copyright, which is the same) belong together. Hopefully, the court case to which I am a party — Overview Books v. US — will restore the normal meaning of the copyright as the author’s right to publish without a middleman — and his or her ability to utilize all requisite tools, including the government-maintained catalog.

While the government should be able to keep its secrets, the public should also be able to do what it needs to do to function properly — to freely discuss whatever the members of the public want to discuss. Both needs will be served by restoring to the copyright its normal function — that of allowing authors the right to present their works to the mainstream marketplace of ideas — or to withhold it from the public scrutiny if they wish to do so.

After the Civil War, the democrats became the party of big business and this was the main reason why it alienated the less prosperous voters in the north. Moreover, the democrats were able to perfect the urban political machine long before the Civil War by getting loyal votes from immigrants and others who were given jobs and services. This clever combination of large urban support in the north and the unquestionable support in the south, paved the way for the democrats to sometimes win the presidency or control Congress. This became explicitly apparent in the presidential elections of 1884 which was won by the democrat Grover Cleveland. He got the solid support from the south, the Border States, and even Indiana, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.

In the era between the Civil War and the Depression, the democrats did not really stand for anything except the oppression of African Americans. The power of the democrats in those days was also facilitated by the prohibition of African Americans to vote in the south. This was obviously clear with the election of Woodrow Wilson who remained in office between 1913 and 1920. Wilson became president because he had the massive support from the south and gained significant advantage from the division among in the Republican Party. Despite the fact that he only received 41% of the popular vote, he got the presidency and thanks to the First World War he became a historic figure. After Wilson’s presidency, the democrats played a marginal role in US politics and this bad fate was turned around with a man-made disaster: the Great Depression.

When the democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, the American electorate was already blaming the republicans for all the misery. The US was ready to make a shift towards a welfare state like those already existing in several European countries. The New Deal proposed by the democrats merely filled a social security gap which existed long before in the US. The time was ripe for the introduction of the New Deal program of the democrats which was necessary to bring the US closer to the advanced European countries in providing social safety nets for those unfortunate ‘victims’ of the ruthless side effects of the industrial economy.

Southern African Americans were aligned with the Republican Party until the 1960s. But the democrats under President Lyndon Johnson finally enacted and enforced a meaningful civil rights act. Johnson also led the democrats to extend the New Deal. The War on Poverty was truly a democratic program to alleviate poverty in the US. Unfortunately, the cost of this program had to be combined with the costs of the Vietnam War and this led to the rise of stagflation in the 1970s. It was another democrat elected to the presidency who finally dismantled Johnson’s Great Society programs: Clinton. What happened during the Clinton administration was the move of the democrats to the right side of the political spectrum using an Orwellian excuse for this shift called ‘welfare reform.’

Generally, a city is divided into political subdivisions called wards, the lines of which are usually re-drawn every ten years following the census reports. The elected Mayor usually has the sole task of redrawing those ward lines, although in some cities the mayor will do so with the advice or approval of city council. In partisan cities, the power of re-drawing ward lines can allow one political party to gerrymander wards to make sure that their representatives remain in power throughout the decade.

City councilpersons can be elected as representatives of a single ward or at-large. Ward councilpersons are elected only by the residents of the wards they reside in. At-large councilpersons, however, are voted upon by residents of the entire city. An example of division between ward councilpersons and at-large councilpersons could be something like this: in a city with four wards, council could be made up of four ward councilpersons, and three at-large councilpersons.

If a city has three at-large council seats, the usual way to elect representatives is to award the seats to the top three vote-getters in the race. In most instances, city council members are elected to two-year terms before they have to present themselves to the voters again for re-election.

Additionally, some cities also have an elected President of Council who acts as the leader of that legislative body. The way this position is selected differs from city to city; some cities make the top at-large vote getter the President of Council, others have it as a separately elected position, and still others allow the members of council to choose their own president.

The awakening spirit has occurred numerous times in my life, but nothing seem to change, the criminal is glorified, the victim no restitution and the cancer within our political system continues to grow, I think we are at a critical stage of erosion to the foundation of the Constitution and the Civil Liberties within our country, the same Individuals that chip away at the Constitution to destroy it, are the same Individuals that run and hide behind it to protect themselves.

These are some of the examples that contribute to the awakening movement in our current history; lack of accountability by our political leaders, the lack of addressing issues of Illegal, Unethical, and Immoral behavior in the Public sector, the extortion of Public fund for personal gain, exposed Public figure involved in criminal behavior and remains a Public figure, Clinton’s sexual affair in the White House and then perjury in front of a Grand Jury. A banking system and Insurance Industries that brought about the economic turmoil that effect millions on an economic scale and then rewarded for facial irresponsibility by receiving taxpayer dollars by the Obama administration in lieu of bailout funds, and the Obama doubling of the deficit within a 2 year period, which will affect the common taxpayer for generations, and the effects of the Oil Corporations irresponsibility in the destruction of the ecological system with the oil spills for personal gain, the Iraq war where public resources are used and precious life lost for Oil interest and monetary gain.

Any self-respecting coach who boasted a season average loss of 65 points would consider letting someone else take charge. As Michael Tomasky observes of midterm elections, “[Y]ou lose 65 seats, you resign. Period. There should not be a question.” But Congressional Democrats have expressed so little interest in replacing House Majority (soon to be Minority) Leader Nancy Pelosi that you might be forgiven for thinking she were a Republican plant.

(Perhaps liberal columnist Susan Estrich is also a Republican plant; see her hilarious but non-satirical column, “Nancy Pelosi, Superhero.”)

Pelosi plans to celebrate the wild success of the 111th Congress with a swanky soiree in the Cannon House Office Building.

Let’s catalogue the damage from Tuesday’s elections. Approximately 40% of incoming House GOP freshmen are affiliated with the Tea Party, and five (six if Joe Miller wins) of the seven Senate pickups are for Tea Party candidates. This is to say nothing of reelected incumbents who are already Tea Party luminaries, such as Representative Michele Bachmann and Senator Jim DeMint.

Not only did Republicans net more than 60 House seats, 7 Senate seats, 7 governorships, and dozens of state legislatures-which should be a strong enough signal to Democrats that America is sick of their policies-but these candidates are on average more conservative and less likely to vote for Democratic legislation than Republicans in the current Congress. Reelected incumbent Tea Party Congressmen are also more likely to pick up key chairmanships and leadership posts and exert greater influence over Congress.

But of the incoming GOP freshman class, the website ThinkProgress.com cries, “91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business… 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax… 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment”-as though the American people weren’t wildly in favor of all of these proposals.

Paul Krugman hasn’t stopped his wailing for more federal stimulus spending and currency manipulation. His latest diatribe, one week after the election, is indistinguishable from his diatribes from one week or even three months ago. On Monday he proposed “weakening the dollar” and “leading people to believe that we will have somewhat above-normal inflation over the next few years,” citing as supporters of his crazy policies “many economists, some regional Fed presidents and the International Monetary Fund”-by which he means “discredited Keynesians, the people responsible for the mess we’re in, and the organization that has destroyed economies worldwide from Indonesia to Ireland.”

Apparently liberal commentators don’t just want surviving Congressional Democrats to commit suicide again. Evidently they’d also like it if our Commander in Chief did so as well. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich advises President Obama to dig in like FDR in 1936, rather than move to the center like Clinton in 1994. Frank Rich recommends that Obama dare Republicans to enact the tax and spending cuts they propose, and suggests that if the GOP does this, the Democratic Party will come roaring back in 2012 like Harry Truman in 1948.

Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post muses, “[T]he big question will be what lesson Obama takes from Tuesday’s election results. If he and his advisors are finally ready to acknowledge that the source of voter unhappiness was government ineffectiveness-rather than government overreach… then there’s plenty of room for him to maneuver on his own.” Wrong lesson! Try again.

Froomkin continues: “Indeed, progressives are urging him to seize the opportunity to take a more muscular approach with his executive powers… They also hope Obama will use his regulatory authority, his enforcement powers, and his prerogatives as commander in chief to make decisive moves that can’t be sabotaged by Congressional Republicans.” Wow-it’s as though Froomkin is directly channeling the collective will of American voters!

DeWayne Wickham of USA Today declares, “Don’t wave a white flag; hoist the battle flag. That’s what Barack Obama should do… The lesson to be learned… is not that Democrats should surrender to the right wing. It is that they should put up a better fight to move their agenda.” These types of sentiments are almost excusable in the waning weeks and days before an election-who doesn’t like an optimist, a persistent fighter, and an underdog-but a week after the Democrats were destroyed? Reality hasn’t sunk in for these people yet?

Sensible commentator Toby Harnden of the UK Telegraph predicts, “Obama is not about to move to the centre… Nothing in his career indicates he is ready to cut deals with political opponents. He is sure what he believes is right; if you don’t agree with him, he pities you for being so slow to understand… Last Tuesday was a setback like nothing else he had experienced in life and it appears to have left his enormous sense of self-assurance undiminished.”

And Wesley Pruden notes, “President Obama thinks nobody is really mad about what he’s done, they just want a little soothing syrup on it. He promises better speeches to describe the same old soggy dish the dogs won’t touch.”

Please note that all of this Democratic blindness is occurring despite a marked absence of gloating on the part of the GOP, who recognize that the Tea Party threw them a lifeline and that they had better hold onto it tight if they want to survive the next election cycle. Democrats are arguably no less triumphant about their performance last Tuesday than Republicans.

I’ve always admired Professor Sowell and have enjoyed several of his books, particularly in the area of economics and his understanding of free trade which is based on free association and exchange. But as a ‘former’ Conservative for over 30 yrs I’ve come to the realization that the big difference between Progressives and Conservatives is what they want the federal government to regulate. Pros want to regulate economic activity to produce social outcomes of collective equality, justice and peace, while Cons prefer to leave economic activity to a freer and less regulated model but on the other hand prefer to intervene into societal values with federal powers. My assertion is that social values and economic values work in tandem and responsd to open markets in similar ways, and that to have a healthy economy and ‘values’ rich society is to have much less regulations and more freedom of association and transaction.

The framers of our constitution in fact grappled with this and in their brilliance came up with a divided government that enumerate specific powers of the federal government which were ‘negative’ regarding liberty and left all else to the States which could be either ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ liberty, but warned against the latter. Negative Liberty is like Adam’s relationship with God in the garden, “All else you are free to do, but stay away from this tree” vs God’s relationship with the Israelites through Mosaic Law, “these 613 laws you Must perform to qualify”. JS Mill put Negative Liberty this way in his Harm Principle, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. ” As Jefferson said, “The best government is the one that governs least.” Doesn’t it make sense that if you or I can barely (a least we think) regulate our own homes, then why would we think more power in Washington, DC would allow for better regulatory outcomes.

Also, with the unique personalities, talents and physical demands from house to house, wouldn’t it make sense that how you govern effectively might be different than how I would in my house? Managing from 30,000 feet is much less effective and could be harmful and counter productive versus managing close and on the ground. The framers understood this, and looked to many sources and historical events to conclude that ‘macro government’ should be negative in its application of law (like the garden) but that States and their local precincts could experiment in positive liberty. So issues like marriage, drugs, land rights, banking, etc, they left to the States to decide. The essence of the Constitution was to limit power and maximize liberty, but to allow the Federal Government to step in when those liberties were violated, the powers left to the States depending upon each State’s Charter or Constitution allowed for them to ‘dabble’ in positive liberty to regulate certain values – but forewarned them to proceed at their own peril.

This time Obama is on a 6 day visit and to India alone and Pakistan is not being visited. This again shows that the USA has realized the importance of India in this part of Asia. However the Visit of the US president is after he has already visited Japan and China earlier. This again shows that as yet, the USA does not consider India a peer of China. For this perhaps the blame lies with the Indian government that has not projected India at par with China in any field, Military or industrial. The visit is however a watershed in Indo-USA relations.

The US has endorsed India’s claim to be member of the Security Council. This by itself is not a mean achievement, as India is trying for UN Security Council seat for decades. In addition billion of dollars of trade and financial agreements are on the anvil as the USA pushes for markets for its goods. With recession at home Obama perhaps had no choice but to go in for massive billion dollars trade and financial agreements. Another gain is the US commitment to fight terror.

Though Obama has done the tight rope walk and not mentioned Pakistan as the fomenter of terrorism, yet he has endorsed the war on terror and India can be sure to an extant of US support for this cause. He has however mentioned that safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan is unacceptable.The dead lock on Kashmir remains and Obama has followed a safe path.He has asked for a bilateral solution as India wants and has mentioned that the US has no solution to offer. Perhaps the Kashmir issue will simmer for a long time to come. The visit of the US president needs to be appreciated and India can draw solace from the fact in the final reckoning, the importance of India is on the rise.

I remember hearing the First Lady tell supporters at a rally that change is hard and doesn’t always feel good. Despite the disappointing loss Democrats experienced and the unexpected victory conservatives enjoyed, this is part of that change, just not what anyone expected.

This will be one of the most divided Houses in years, and despite many voters sending electing reform oriented catalytic converters, I doubt much will get done, unless the world of political idealism and reality somehow collide. Who knows, anything is possible these days.

But if we take Obama’s message of change we can believe in and apply it to what we saw in November, perhaps this is just part of that process. Maybe Americans really are tired and want something different. Perhaps this new congress will be held to a different standard as they learn how to govern effectively. Everybody is already talking about compromising and working together… as long is it involves joining their respective camps.

If change we can believe in has any traction or truth to it whatsoever, it will have to come from the bottom up, not the top down. This election served as a symbol of people having the ability to shake up Washington but the only problem was that they sent the wrong people to do the job.

What we as individuals need to realize is that if we really want to create a better world to live in, then we have to take more of a hands on approach. Voting people into office is step one, and keeping our elected officials accountable and honest is our responsibility and ours alone.

Hopefully this will be a golden hour in changing the direction of our nation, but I highly doubt it because we just aren’t ready for realistic idealism quite yet. However, if it were to happen, I can’t think of a better person than Obama to bring everyone together.

If we use our heads and make our elected officials do what we want them to do, then this diverse blend of personalities that makes up the 112th Congress can be of good use to us. But, since we are so used to them using us to do what they want to do, it is going to take more than one strange election to change our attitudes.

But the more involved we are in the process, the more real change can be made instead of this continual cycle of nonsense that we’ve gotten used to.

John is an unemployed choir director who is also a freelance article and song writer. Traveling the world and sharing stories about life’s little moments, his articles cover a wide range of interesting topics including a passenger eye view of the travel industry.

Namely, a 50% jump in the unemployment rate, a tripling of the federal budget, and a tenfold increase in the annual deficit. But who’s counting?

Behold the 10 most remarkable outcomes from yesterday’s historic midterm elections:

1. Illinois Senate:

This one says it all. Amidst allegations of corrupt and incompetent business dealings and public program administration, Democrat Alexi Giannoulias couldn’t stave off the GOP tsunami and retain Senator Barack Obama’s former seat. Fiscally conservative, socially moderate Representative Mark Kirk ran on his votes against the stimulus bill and ObamaCare and eked out the most important symbolic victory of the evening.

2. Florida Senate:

George Hamilton lookalike Charlie Crist disingenuously switched parties in May to become an Independent, rather than risk facing a primary loss, and after the primaries promised to caucus with Senate Democrats. Marco Rubio was an early Tea Party darling the mainstream media labeled unelectable; Rubio overcame a last-minute race-baiting dirty trick by Bill Clinton and received nearly as many votes as his Independent and Democratic opponents combined.

3. Kentucky Senate:

Jack Conway stooped almost as low as Florida’s Alan Grayson by cutting last-minute ads implying his opponent wasn’t a true Christian because of a college prank 27 years ago. Rand Paul unapologetically espoused radically libertarian, small-government positions, wisely endorsed more aggressive and active foreign policy positions than his isolationist father Ron Paul, and was brave enough not to back down from saying government should not interfere with private hiring decisions.

4. Pennsylvania Senate:

Arlen Specter swayed back and forth with the political winds for two years until he was uprooted and blown into retirement. Democrat Joe Sestak not only didn’t hide from his embarrassing support for the lethal Big Three signature Obama policies-the stimulus bill, cap-and-trade, and ObamaCare-but argued all should have been bigger and more government-heavy. In contrast, Club for Growth President Pat Toomey was an unabashed fiscal conservative and Tea Party favorite who won despite an unfavorable blue-state climate.

5. Wisconsin Senate:

Russ Feingold was a long-term incumbent and influential, far-left scourge of conservatives in the Senate, due to his cosponsorship of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act and solitary losing vote in the Senate’s initial 98-1 vote on the PATRIOT Act. Businessman Ron Johnson was a Tea Party conservative, unapologetic global warming skeptic, and ardent offshore drilling supporter who fought long odds and an opponent with a massive campaign war chest to achieve another important symbolic victory.

6. Ohio Governor:

Six-term former Representative and incumbent two-term governor Ted Strickland couldn’t hold his seat due to his support for Obama policies and his role in Ohio’s miserable economic conditions. Former Representative and House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich ran on his conservative record in Congress and took over an office that will be crucial in managing campaign finance operations in the 2012 presidential election.

7. Arkansas Senate:

Blanche Lincoln paid for her support for ObamaCare and couldn’t extend her long-term incumbency despite her Blue Dog Democrat status. John Boozman hammered home his opponent’s ideological similarity to Obama, reiterated his opposition to ObamaCare and cap-and-trade legislation, and destroyed Lincoln by a whopping 20 points.

8. Florida House 22:

Ron Klein defeated Republican Colonel Allen West in 2008 and voted with Democrats 98% of the time in the 111th Congress. This year West got his revenge by defending himself against smears about his service in the Iraq War and fearlessly fighting back claims of Uncle Tomism to become the nation’s most prominent black Tea Party elected official.

9. South Carolina Governor:

State Senator Vincent Sheheen tried to hide his liberal record but couldn’t sway South Carolina voters, even after Governor Mark Sanford’s sex scandal. Nikki Haley came back from last place in the Republican primary, fought disgusting allegations of extramarital affairs, and rode the Sarah Palin/Jim DeMint/Tea Party wave to become the nation’s second Indian American governor.

10. Colorado House 4:

Incumbent Representative Betsy Markey floundered after her support for ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus bill. “Young Gun” State Representative Cory Gardner defeated Markey due to his vocal support of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan’s radical, fiscally austere Roadmap for America.

Objectively, one would generally think that a conservative was someone who believed in “smaller government,” balanced budgets, and fewer social services, while a liberal might be perceived as someone who believed in more government involvement, more social programs, and larger spending. However, in the real world, the lines between conservative and liberal are quite often blurred.

Most people would have considered President Bill Clinton to be more liberal that President George Bush. However, when Clinton left office, there was a surplus budget, and the stock market was doing very well, and unemployment was rather low, while business profits were generally performing well. Eight years later, President George Bush left office with record federal deficits, a down stock market, a weakening economy and high unemployment figures. Government spending during the Bush administration grew at a far greater pace than during the Clinton years.

Much has been written and said about the Bush tax cuts, and while it certainly meant lower federal income taxes, it also undoubtedly brought in less federal revenue, thus exacerbating the deficit. In addition, these tax breaks on federal income tax often caused other municipalities to raise their taxes.

How many times have you heard a political candidate complaining about one type of taxes – - generally, real estate taxes? However, in a large number of cases, this reduced real estate tax ended up being more than offset by other taxes and fees that municipalities imposed.

When will the American public demand more from its elected officials? When will people stop reacting to rhetoric and terminology, and examine reality and action instead? Why do people call themselves liberal or conservative, and thus button hole themselves into some artificial label, with really very little true meaning. Why do people vote strictly by party line, as opposed to evaluating each issue on its merits?

There are very few officials that are strictly conservative, or strictly liberal on every issue. People must understand that it is possible for someone to be liberal on social issues, while being conservative on economic issues, or vice versa. We tend to label our politicians, our politics, and our issues in too much of a black and white matter, while there is generally a lot of gray areas. We deserve better than our current system is delivering.