Gamespot reports that a Corpous Christi rancher, Star Locke, is proposing a series of radical proposals in the gubernatorial race. With an eye to eliminating property tax, he proposes the following:

• $10,000 per abortion tax paid by medical clinics.
• 50% tax on “violent video games (to manufacturers)
• 10% sugar-filled soda tax

(Figures above as reported by Amarillo Globe News; Gamespot reports 100% tax on games and 50% tax on soda.)

If this is true, then apparently, Star Locke isn’t familiar with basic economics. Here’s why.

$10,000 per abortion

This doesn’t change user behavior per se, and is geared towards causing medical providers to stop doing them. Either a) they will stop doing them, and people will start seeking abortions out of state, or b) they will continue doing them, and drive up the cost of health care, as this always gets passed down in expenses. After all, there’s no reason they would pass these costs directly to the people getting abortions. You might not pay this amount in property tax, but you would in health. Hope you don’t get sick in Texas!

Incidentally, if this is sufficient to reduce the number of abortions performed, then it may have other interesting effects. Steven D. Levitt made an interesting case in the book Freakonomics, which examined the link between crime rates and abortion. Statistics back up his findings, meaning that if such a policy were enacted, we might see a rather nasty Texas in twenty years — it’s a good thing they can get guns. They’ll need them. Think New York in the eighties.(Read the book for the rather compelling argument.)

50% violent video game tax

If this measure succeeded, then it would have the benefit of having violent video game publishers reduce or stop sales to Texas. On the face of it, this seems like a good thing. However, again, it’s not hard to obtain games from out-of-state sources. I imagine the surrounding states and online stores would be able to pull in a little extra revenue from this. However, this is revenue that would have gone to Texas-based stores. I.e., your cutting down on violent video games being sold in state, but you’re doing so by cutting out sales in your state. I hope Locke was putting that estimated lost sales tax revenue into his calculations! Less sales tax, less revenue for stores, and no effective curbing of behavior — it’s a lose-lose-lose proposal.

10% soda tax

I’m not sure if this is directed at manufacturers or end users, but in either case, the same arguments as for violent video games holds true. Plus, this would probably increase the sales of sugary juices, which aren’t exactly better. Like the abortion tax, these costs would filter down to the end user in terms of pricing. So, it’s much the same as taxing end users. You don’t pay property tax, but you pay it on the soda! However, if people could easily switch from soda to other sugary drinks, then this won’t be very effective anyway. I’m also skeptical that eliminating soda would help fight obesity — it’s a diet change and the addition of exercise that will foster change. Soda will only help so much. If you really want to make a difference, go after the high carb-based foods — those turn directly into sugar, and are probably the bigger problem in people’s diets.

It’s simply far too easy to get out of state to make these measures effective. (Yes, I know Texas is a really big state.) There are fundamental problems with each of the assertions he’s listed, and it doesn’t take a genius to pick these out. Anyone with a freshman course in economics could see these weren’t effective ideas.

Plus, Locke is ignoring the rule: The greater the success in the former, the less the success in the latter. Let’s say he’s successful in curbing all of these things: abortion, soda consumption, and violent video game sales are all reduced. The tax revenues from these things would also be reduced. With no property tax and little revenue from these new taxes, how is the government going to be funded?

However, the more likely scenario is a blend of the above: the measures themselves would only marginally affect things, and not enough revenue would be generated. Marginal changes in human behavior and no money — it doesn’t sound like Locke can eliminate property taxes this way. I recommend Locke hire a fiscal policy advisor for his campaign — he can probably take a tax deduction on it.

According to the AFP, a research team from the University of Leicester headed by Adrian North “concluded that because of greater accessibility through mass media, music was nowadays seen more as a commodity that is produced, distributed and consumed like any other.” I.e., due to the ease with which music can be obtained, we no longer get a deep connection with music. (This was based on a study two week study involving monitoring 346 people’s music listening habits.)

Ars Technica rightfully noted that the causality of this behavior was still in question, and to put it to, say, the ease with which mp3s may be obtained or online radio stations may be listened to is a bit glib.

The music industry doesn’t give their listening public much credit. With so little desire to experiment on new forms of music, we end up with less originality in mainstream music being produced, with the end run goal of making money factories. It’s almost like there’s a music industry formula: take a reasonably attractive front person, tweak up their vocals, make sure it fits into the standard music sound scheme, and voila — instant money generator. No thought involved, nothing new created. So much of the new music sounds alike, that it’s hard to pick out any gems.

Do they forget the passion that drove people to music in the first place, back before every artist started sounding the same, with the same style of not-too-offensive lyrics? Before the record deals, contract placements, merchandising tie-ins, and the like, people listened to music — that’s what made them so passionate about it. The riffs from Hendrix’s electric guitar are unmistakeable. The throaty lyrics from Billie Holiday take people on an almost spiritual journey. The quick, light licks from Paul Desmond’s saxophone against the light, energetic pianoing of Dave Brubeck. The mellow voice of Carol King. The incomprehensibility of Bob Dylan. The in-the-raw voice of Janice Joplin. All of these things are incredibly unique. There is no formula there. Even Beethoven was regarded as avant garde in his time. These days? It’s hard to say any artist is creating a genre.

What’s more, they were off singing about much more impassioned pleas than you find in today’s typical fare. It’s very hard to get strongly emotionally attached to music that just plays to the emo crowd. (Not that this is a bad thing, but c’mon, there’s something called saturation.) I’m sure the increasingly sardonic, cynical, and secular shift of popular society isn’t helping either. Is there more difficulty in getting emotionally involved in today’s music? Sure. However, I’m not convinced this is due to the “ease” of obtaining music these days.

When you think about it, the times that really make music come alive to oneself is remembering the music playing at points in your life. Do you remember rocking out to music in your dorm room? How about on a cross country drive? How about the music playing when you first made out with your significant other? All of these events make little poignant mental liner notes for the soundtrack of your life. Just remember: the music has to be memorable, or all bets are off.

How about another study where we talk about how we feel in general about the music coming out of the music industry? That might be able to shed more light on the situation. What do you think, Adrian, up for it? Take a wide age range, people who are online listening to music a lot, people who aren’t, and see what they think about music from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and beyond.

South Korea has been in a lot of hot water lately over the human cloning scandal, where the almost legendary and revered Dr. Hwang Woo Suk fabricated his research to put South Korea at the forefront of biotechnology. According to this New York Times article, all his success in human cloning was completely faked, which means that South Korea is no closer to that technology than anyone else. This is unfortunate for the field of biotech. However, what’s even more unfortunate are the people who continue to laud their support on this faker. In the field of research, the one thing you cannot do is lie. That defeats the purpose of the research itself, and makes it a political game. That’s not to say research shouldn’t be political, but the research itself should be based on fact. To do otherwise is to forever tarnish your scientific reputation.

I’m a little annoyed by Xeni Jardin’s Boing Boing headline, “Snuppy the cloned Korean dog: Faked?” From the article, the cloned dog appears to be the one point of legitimacy in Hwang’s research, which means that Xeni’s headline is completely wrong. It’s in fact, the exact opposite. It’s in the article you linked, Xeni! The reason this annoys me so much is that I know that Snuppy’s cloning itself is under scrutiny, which implied to me an update. Such was not forthcoming.

The music industry has been waging a war on its consumers with DRM, and it’s getting to concerning levels. With Sony BMG’s latest gaff of installing crippling rootkits on user’s computers via its CDs, it’s more important than ever to let the industry know that this is not acceptable. Elizabeth Stark and Fred Benenson of Freeculture.org created this PledgeBank pledge: “I will pledge to never purchase a CD contaning any form of Digital Rights Management (DRM), but only if 500 people around the world will too.” Sign this petition to let the music industry know that it’s a problem crippling their consumers’s PCs. (They already hit the 500 mark, but it’s a good idea to get the petition to as large a number as possible.)

I’m a poster boy for the RIAA, in the sense that my music collection is completely legal. I’m their ideal customer — I buy music, and I don’t share it. I’m an example of someone who would be most affected by their change here. The problem is, they aren’t targeting me. They’re targeting the subset of people who do rip this music and share it — which, incidentally, are the people least likely to be affected by this, as it’s easy to circumvent. So, what does this mean? The music industry is using DRM to target a subset of people who are not their core customers, with the net result of negatively impacting their core customers. In terms of business, this is a bad idea: they’re burning the very people who give them money. So why do are they doing it? Because they are incredibly short sighted.

I have signed this online petition because it’s true: I won’t buy a DRMed CD. I don’t need the extra headaches associated with DRM, be it with managing licenses to dealing with root kits. I’ve had enough, music industry, stop tormenting me! Music is supposed to soothe me, not aggravate me.

Okay, it’s not really politically correct, but this is a good blonde joke.