Dan Brown’s publisher, Random House, is being sued in London for copyright infringement by two authors who claim The Da Vinci Code is based on their 1982 “non-fiction” book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, also published by Random House. Brown previously acknowledged using the book as a source for his own, but attorneys for Random House say that his story is very different and one cannot copyright a general idea.
I’m by no means an expert on British copyright law, but I think Brown’s lawyers are probably right. It’s a general tenet of U.S. copyright law that vague ideas cannot be copyrighted. Imagine if they could be. Fiction publishing and Hollywood would come to a complete halt. How many truly original story ideas have you ever seen?
The trial is expected to last about two weeks, and perhaps the plaintiffs can provide examples of enough similarities between the two books to convince the judge that Brown indeed appropriated more than just their basic idea. But I still think their case will be very difficult to win, especially since Brown doesn’t fully follow their story line. For example, they have Jesus marying Mary Magdalene, then not being executed by the Romans, but instead living a full, human life. Brown has the marriage, but he doesn’t question Christ’s divinity. He said he would never challenge the crucifixion and resurrection.
The Nashua Telegraph takes a dim view of the state motto in an editorial today.
“‘Live free or die’ is politically oriented rather than geographic. It doesn’t inspire an image of the state’s major attributes other than being a tax haven for people from other states or for those who believe they may have finally found a libertarian’s heaven, although Idaho may lay claim to that title.”
So the Telegraph thinks the state motto is little more than a rallying cry for out-of-staters looking for some mythical libertarian utopia. How’s that for state spirit? Good thing Gen. Stark isn’t around to hear talk like that. He might gather up his militia and march on the Telegraph offices. I wonder what kind of motto the Telegraph editorial writers would dream up to replace “Live free or die.” Probably something this guy would like.
A writer for The Scotsman tells what sinister secret really lies hidden in Rosslyn Chapel, the Scottish church that features prominently in Dan Brown’s novel.
I normally don’t respond to criticism from community access television. No one watches, it, so what’s the point in responding to it? But I’m making an exception because Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, is using his TV show and word of mouth to misrepresent his early release bill and his communications with me about it.
He has said that I called him to apologize after we ran an editorial criticizing his bill, which would release many criminals before they complete their sentences. It’s only one of the many inaccuracies he is peddling.
After the editorial, Vaillancourt contacted me, and I called him back. He said we got the bill wrong when we wrote that it applied to murderers. He said that in the House Criminal Justice Committee, before the editorial ran, he asked that it be amended to remove all violent and repeat offenders. I asked if the bill had in fact included murderers when he introduced it, and he confirmed that it did, but said he wanted to amend it. Fair enough, I said, if we made a mistake it was our goof and we’ll correct it. He then hung up on me.
We ran a clarification stating that Vaillancourt had asked that violent and repeat offenders not qualify for early release. It was a clarification, not a correction. The bill, which you can read here, plainly applies to violent offenders, including some murderers.
Vaillancourt is making it look as if the bill does not apply to violent or repeat offenders, or at least that he never meant it to. “I told the Criminal Justice Committee that I didn’t intend for murderers or even recidivists to be part of the bill,” he said. Hmmm. Then why did he introduce a bill that would give murderers and recidivists early release? Either he is being dishonest, or he didn’t read his own bill before introducing it.
Vaillancourt took his smears to a comical level by calling the Union Leader racist because he thought our editorial cartoon on the issue made him look black. Evidently, Vaillancourt has never watched a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. The shading on his face represents powder from the blast.
(On that same show, he said snowboarder Lindsey Jacobellis is from New Hampshire. She’s from Vermont.)
By the way, Vaillancourt complains that he can’t amend his bill because bills are amended in committee. He is not on the Criminal Justice Committee, where his bill sits. In fact, as of last week he is on no committees at all. House Speaker Doug Scamman removed Vaillancourt from the Ways and Means Committee after Vaillancourt wrote an insulting letter to the committee chairman.
Being insulting is among the things Vaillancourt does very well. Unfortunately, being a good representative for his constituents is not.
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Sen. John Sununu is the most taxpayer-friendly member of the U.S. Senate. NTU ranks senators and representatives based on how they vote on taxes and spending. Sununu ranked Sununu No. 1 in 2005. Sen. Judd Gregg ranked 10th.
In both chambers, only Sununu and Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., scored higher than 90 percent on NTU’s test (both scored 91).
Charlie Bass scored a B-, and Jeb Bradley a C+, giving New Hampshire’s House delegation a state average of only 57 percent. But that’s a lot better than Vermont (18 percent), Massachusetts (16 percent) and Maine (16 percent), and actually pretty good for a House delegation.
In the Senate, New Hampshire edged out South Carolina (80 percent), Oklahoma (81 percent) and Arizona (83 percent) to earn the nation’s top score of 84 percent.
Not surprisingly, Sununu’s office issued a press release announcing his top ranking.
Mitt Romney came to New Hampshire this weekend and made some headlines. Here’s a little roundup:
Washington Post story on his speech
His interview on FOX News Sunday
Boston Globe story about the increasing popularity of Romney’s wife
Rep. Jim Craig, D-Manchester, has officially entered the race for the 1st District House seat held by Jeb Bradley. (That makes four Democrats running. Obviously, they think Jeb’s vulnerable.) Craig is the Democratic Leader in the state House of Representatives, though he’s been in the House a relatively short time (four terms). He is an attorney in Manchester, and an avid reader of World War II history.
Craig is reading a very popular book at the moment, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. As it’s the only book on his list at the moment, he provided some lengthy commentary:
“This is a fascinating book about Abraham Lincoln and the men who challenged him in the Presidential election of 1860. It describes the political culture of the times and how the great men of the time, Lincoln, Douglas, William Seward, Salmon Chase and Edward Bates handled the issue of slavery and how they each advanced their political ambitions.
“One thing that struck me, given all of the talk about ‘anger’ in politics today, was the statement that Lincoln was one of the funniest men in politics at that time. I think that people tend to take good humored people as somehow weak, and I disagree with that and so I was glad to read that about Lincoln because he was by no means a weak man.
“Finally, although I have not finished the book, the point of the book is to demonstrate Lincoln’s political genius in co-opting his rivals into his cabinet after he was elected President. Not many politicians would do that. Lincoln was a smart man, but they were all smart men. What made Lincoln stand out was his magnanimity, his humility and his good humor even under periods of enormous pressure. These are simple attributes, but I think they propelled Lincoln to greatness. We have never celebrated a William H. Seward Day.”
Craig said he prefers reading about World War II.
“I generally like to read anything about WW II. I am unable to resist any book that describes the lives of Roosevelt, Churchill and Hitler during the war. Those men lived and dominated under enormous pressure and I always try to figure out what it was in their characters that allowed them to first hold up and then either to thrive or fail under that pressure.”
On that subject, he recommends two books:
The Duel: Hitler vs. Churchill 10 May - 31 July, 1940, by John Lukacs
Franklin and Winston, by Jon Meacham
Now, I wonder if any of Craig’s primary opponents can find something in here to use against him during the race.
There’s good coverage of curling and its New Hampshire connection in the Manchester Mirror and in today’s print edition of the Union Leader. But they still can’t make me watch it.
I haven’t watched any of the Olympics this month. I can’t stand figure skating (it’s not a sport, it’s an art), and who wants to watch people in warm-up suits slide stones across the ice? It’s almost as boring as golf. Skiing is cool, and hockey can be exciting, but that’s about it. Skeleton? Luge? Just grown men sledding. I can see that just stepping outside my house.
I might watch the ski jump if they had to fly through a ring of fire. And downhill would be much improved if instead of flags the skiers had to dodge bullets — bullets fired by the biathalon teams, which would make biathalon much more interesting too. (Biathalon is the one Winter Olympic sport I’d like to take up myself.) About the only way to make me watch figure skaters would be to put them on the ice at the same time as the hockey teams. The hockey players wouldn’t play a game, but would have a simple, one-word instruction: Tackle.
Even with those improvements, though, I might not watch. I just can’t get excited about the Olympics knowing that curling is an Olympic sport, but baseball is not. Maybe if they brought back lion wrestling. Nah.
Union Leader Deputy Managing Editor for Sports Vin Sylvia’s blog is now up. Check it out, and get into an argument about Manny Ramirez with him.
I have an op-ed on the resignation of Harvard President Lawrence Summers in today’s Washington Times.
And The Boston Globe has a good story on the last few weeks before Summers announced his resignation.
In an extraordinary op-ed in The Boston Globe today, liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz unleashes an obviously angry verbal assault on the “hard left” arts and sciences faculty who forced Harvard President Lawrence Summers to resign.
“Summers committed the cardinal sin against the academic hard left: He expressed politically incorrect views regarding gender, race, religion, sexual preference, and the military,” Dershowitz writes.
That agrees with our editorial today, Summers’ end: PC forces win at Harvard.
We went further than Dershowitz, pointing out that it wasn’t just Summers’ words that got him in trouble, it was his refusal to let sleeping professors lie. By standing up to frauds such as Cornell West, Summers threatened the exploitative relationship with the university that some hard left professors had worked years to develop.
The deal was implicit: If the university left the radicals alone to preach their political theories and indulge their hobbies while pulling down full salaries and benefits, the radicals wouldn’t accuse the administration of whatever ism might apply — racism, sexism, etc. Summers refused to play along. After he began holding all professors to the same academic expectations, the hard left faculty went after him. It took them several years, but they finally won. If the next Harvard president doesn’t immediately stand up to the radicals and pick up where Summers left off, it will be a very serious setback for academic standards and academic freedom everywhere, as it will encourage similar left-wing faculty revolts at campuses across the country.
Grand old movie theaters are disappearing, victims of megaplexes, home theater systems, video games and the Internet. But Jaffrey has managed to save one. It’ll be run by a non-profit group, which expects to open it to the public next year.
