Who Owns the Songs?

The following is something I wrote primarily for my music blog, but since it touches on some broader issues, I'm posting it here as well.

As I mentioned in a previous post, after recording a few special lunar new year shows for my radio program on Taiwanese popular music, I learned that because of copyright issues, some of the songs I had originally recorded couldn’t be broadcast. This particular problem is connected to a whole host of related issues, so I thought it was worth discussing in some detail.

Basically, in late January the radio station received a notice from a company that claimed to own the rights to or have exclusive licenses to songs owned by several mostly defunct (or at least not actively releasing new music) record companies. This company said that they had quit the intermediary performance-rights organizations (equivalent to BMI and ASCAP in the US) that handle most music copyrights in Taiwan and that anyone wanting to use the songs they held the rights to should contact them directly. The notice came with a list of all the songs they claimed ownership of or exclusive rights to. The list includes hundreds of songs, including most of those released by several record companies that were among the most prominent in the latter decades of the 20th century. Many of these companies did have policies of buying the rights to songs from the writers, so it is not implausible that someone who bought the companies or their assets could end up owning the rights. But in the case of some of the songs, the claim to ownership seems questionable, as I’ll explain later. Then there’s the question of whether record companies should be able to purchase total control over the rights to songs, which is another point I’ll come back to.

The immediate problem arose when the radio station apparently contacted the alleged holder of these copyrights about broadcasting the songs they owned. From what I was told by an artist, the standard charge for broadcasting a song is just a few NT dollars, or somewhere around a tenth of a US dollar. But apparently the copyright owner asked for NT$6000 (about US$200) to broadcast one song one time! Of course no radio station could possibly afford to pay that much, so asking for such a rate was essentially equivalent to refusing permission altogether. Aside from the immediate frustration of being forced to exclude all these songs from any shows I plan in the immediate future, this situation started a whole train of thought about both this specific situation and about its implications for copyright law and ownership of culture in general.

My first question was who the copyright owner in this particular instance was. There were actually three notifications sent to the radio station simultaneously in the name of two record companies – one a fairly prominent one called Jima Records (吉馬唱片) that released many Hoklo albums in the 1980s and 1990s and the other an obscure one – and a third company, and another notification in the name of the third company addressed to Taiwan’s largest KTV (karaoke) chain. But three of the notifications were issued from the same address and had the same contact person, and the contact person from the fourth (sent to the radio station by the more obscure record company) was listed as an additional contact person on one of the other notifications, so it is clear that they are all connected. According to company databases online, the contact person on most of the notices is the person in charge of the third company. This company has an English name which hints at some connection to music or audio equipment, but I didn’t see any sign online of any products being sold under that name, and their company’s registered business scope mainly involves computer-related products. I also didn’t find any information that was clearly about the owner of the company; I found several people with the same name, but I couldn’t tell which if any of them was the same person as the owner. In any event, aside from Jima Records, this person has apparently bought the assets of Lige Records (麗歌唱片) and Kolin Records (歌林唱片), two of the biggest record companies of the 1970s and 1980s, along with a couple of other companies.

So is this person just a dedicated music lover who is rich enough to collect not just records but entire record companies? That’s a possibility; I know one man who out of an interest in old music has bought the assets of at least one defunct record company in addition to the one his family already owned. Perhaps this unknown person who has bought up all these other companies is still unclear about how he should handle the rights he has purchased, or he is for some reason confusing broadcasting with doing a recorded song cover (the rate quoted would be quite reasonable for something like that). But even if his true motivations are innocent, the simple possibility that someone could purchase the rights to such a large number of songs and charge astronomical rates to anyone who wants to use them in any way has some very disturbing implications.

While it may be possible to come up with innocent reasons why someone would want to buy up a lot of song rights and charge a high price for licensing (though it’s pretty hard to think of any really good reasons for the latter), another possible motivation is pure greed. Perhaps he thinks that he can do something similar to what some pharmaceutical companies in the US have done, which is raise the price of certain drugs to outrageous levels in the knowledge that those who really need them will have no choice but to pay. Of course no one needs music in the same way they may need lifesaving drugs, but if even a few people are so desperate to license a particular song that they’ll pay the asking price, he can make more from a single licensing deal as he could from a hundred at the standard rate. Of course one would hope that no one does agree to pay and thereby help such price gouging to succeed, but the possibility does exist.

But even greed is not the most disturbing possible motivation for such a move. The list of songs that this company and its presumed owner claim to own include a number of the most famous popular songs in Taiwan, including such songs as the Hoklo classics “Longing for the Spring Breeze” (望春風), “Four Seasons of Red” (四季紅) and “Mending a Broken Net” (補破網) and the Mandarin classic “Green Island Serenade” (綠島小夜曲). They also claim to own the rights to a number of famous songs from China, including “When Will He Return” (何日君再來). These particular ownership claims are dubious, as these songs are all over half a century old and the record companies that originally released several of the songs have been gone for almost as long. If the songwriters sold their rights at the time the songs were released, it seems rather unlikely that this company (or anyone else) could have somehow acquired ownership of them (it’s notable that in the case of the Japanese era Hoklo songs they only claim a few of the most famous songs, which represent a very small portion of those released by the original Japanese colonial era record company). It’s possible that they or a predecessor company bought the rights to the songs directly from the songwriters or their heirs decades after the songs were first released, but this doesn’t seem all that likely either, since none of these companies was particularly closely associated with the songs. As for the Chinese songs, the original company is (I think) now owned by EMI, so at most this company might have acquired an exclusive license for Taiwan, though even that seems improbable. For that matter, even in the cases of songs where the rights were definitely sold to the record companies, such as those released by Lige and Kolin, it's quite possible that the original copyright transfer agreements (if any were actually signed) have vanished, making it hard to prove any claims to the rights.

Regardless of the legitimacy of these ownership claims, if no one challenges them, by charging such a high price for anyone to use the songs (I’m assuming here that they would ask similarly high amounts for concert performances and karaoke, which seems likely), they will effectively cause these songs to disappear from public performances and broadcasts. Considering that songs like “Longing for the Spring Breeze” and “Green Island Serenade” are practically like alternative national anthems, this would be a major loss for Taiwanese culture, almost on par with locking the Mona Lisa away where no one could see it. But why would anyone intentionally strike such a blow at Taiwanese culture? It occurred to me that if China wanted to hold parts of Taiwanese cultural property hostage for political reasons, perhaps as part of an effort to claim them all as Chinese cultural property (which they already do, in the sense that songs and performers from Taiwan are always identified as being from “Taiwan Province, China” if they appear on Chinese broadcasts and such), one way to do so would be to buy up as much Taiwanese cultural property as possible and deprive Taiwanese of the use of it. While it’s not clear what good this would actually do China, a lot of their aggressive behavior toward Taiwan in the past has been counterproductive, and yet they still do it. In other words, logic doesn’t always play much of a role, so I don’t think we can entirely discount the possibility that China or some elements of its leadership (or some of its more nationalistic private citizens) might consider doing something along these lines.

I have seen no evidence that this company or its owner has any connection to China (their registered address is in Taipei), and it’s quite possible that they have none. But even if they don’t, it’s certainly possible that China could attempt something similar in the future, and it seems to me that Taiwan would be wise to ensure that no outside group could in the future attempt to obtain control of a large part of Taiwan’s cultural legacy in such a manner. For that matter, even if there is no political motivation behind this particular company’s acquisition of such a large part of Taiwan’s song catalogue, it doesn’t strike me as a good thing to allow anyone to obtain exclusive ownership to songs that in a very real sense are the common cultural property of all Taiwanese. Why should anyone have the right to deprive the Taiwanese public of the right to hear these songs, whether on the radio, on TV or in concert?

Of course this problem is not limited to music or to Taiwan; companies like Disney in the US also seem to be trying to gain control of a big part of the common culture of English-speaking countries. Disney not only owns the characters that originated with them, but has also bought popular cultural properties such as Winnie the Pooh, the Muppets and Star Wars, and by their widely promoted films based on public domain characters like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, the Little Mermaid, and so forth, they have made their versions the ones most commonly associated with these folk characters, even if they don’t actually own them. On the other hand, even Mickey Mouse would now be in the public domain if Disney hadn’t successfully pushed the US Congress to change copyright law (the new version is sometimes jokingly referred to as “the Mickey Mouse Protection Act”). While it’s not unreasonable for the creators of cultural icons to want some control over their creations and the profits derived from them, it seems like there should be a better way to balance the rights of the creators and those of the public at large, especially where widely loved cultural properties are concerned.

After all, while Beethoven wrote “Fur Elise” and Stephen Foster wrote “Oh Susanna”, now these songs belong to everyone, as do thousands of folk songs for which even the original author is unknown. The same is true for numerous other parts of our cultural heritage. In fact, one could argue that to a certain degree, even recent cultural creations such as songs, books and films from the past few decades don't belong solely to their creators, much less to corporations that may have purchased the rights to them. For instance, people even dispute the right of someone such as George Lucas to make changes to his Star Wars films, arguing that the original releases are the true versions, and Lucas's later versions are not legitimate. Regardless of how one feels about this particular case (my own feeling is that while a creator like Lucas of course has the right to alter his own creations, he can't dictate which version will be most widely accepted or preferred, though his opinion inevitably will carry greater weight than anyone else's), it should be obvious that while the original creator may retain ultimate authority over his creations, just by releasing them to the public he or she must accept that they have become in some ways the common property of all. A song, book or other work of art may be interpreted or used in ways that its creator never anticipated, and at least some of these interpretations and uses may become an integral aspect of the work. But if a work is not even completely under the control of its actual creator, to what degree can or should we accept someone who didn't even create it trying to deprive others of the right to use or even enjoy it?

One possible solution to this problem already exists in the form of Creative Commons, which allows far more flexibility for people to use cultural creations, especially in non-commercial contexts. But even standard copyright law could use some revision. For instance, it seems like the law could be written such that for uses of a song such as broadcasting it on the radio or on TV, performing it in a concert or singing it in a karaoke or KTV there could be a standard rate, set by an appropriate government agency and adjusted periodically for inflation. This would prevent this type of price gouging and ensure that all songs remain available to the public, while guaranteeing that copyright owners still get paid. Another possibility is expanding (and more clearly defining) the scope of fair use. I don't think the average restaurant or pub should need to license a song just to play it on their stereo or PA system. If I had an album out, I'd want to make it as easy as possible for people to play it, even if they weren't paying for it. After all, extra exposure is more valuable in the long run. It might be a good idea to clarify - and restrict - the circumstances where licensing is necessary.

But another part of copyright law that I think could use some reconsideration is the length of the time that copyright is protected. According to current Taiwanese law, a song becomes public domain fifty years after the death of the songwriter. This means that the music for the songs “Longing for the Spring Breeze” and “Four Seasons of Red” is actually in the public domain, as the composer Deng Yuxian (鄧雨賢) died in 1944, while the lyrics are still under copyright, since the lyricist Li Linqiu (李臨秋) only died in 1979. But this period of time seems rather excessive. While it is fair that the families of a songwriter (or of an author or other artist) should get at least some of the benefit from their work after their death, especially in case where the creator dies young (sometimes even before they themselves enjoy any profit from their work), a shorter period like twenty or twenty five years seems like it should be sufficient. But in cases where the writer (willingly or not) has sold or transferred all their rights, it doesn’t make sense for the length of copyright protection to be tied to their lifespans at all. For instance, among the songs claimed in the case discussed above are the earliest popular songs written by two of Taiwan’s most prominent latter day songwriters, Luo Dayou (Lo Ta-yu; 羅大佑) and Li Taixiang (Li Tai-hsiang; 李泰祥), songs that were originally released in the 1970s. The latter died only two years ago, and the former is still alive. Why should this company that bought up all the rights to their songs be able to maintain copyright protection for them for half a century after they die? It’s not as if either the songwriters themselves or their families are getting any benefit from them. I think that a much more reasonable arrangement for songs or other cultural creations is that in cases where the original creator no longer owns the rights, they should become public domain around, say, twenty years after the creator signed the rights away. This would give the buyer of the rights plenty of time to recoup what they paid the actual creator (often an extremely limited amount in any case; Luo sold the rights to his first few songs for NT$2000 apiece in the late 1970s, and the usual rate at the time Li’s first songs were released was even lower), but not allow them to profit from something they didn’t create themselves for as long as a century in cases where the writer is particularly long-lived. After all, the original point of copyright law was to protect the actual creators. Now it has been distorted into a tool for corporate entities to profit off the works of artists who often get little real benefit from their work. We should make changes to ensure that it regains its proper focus, protecting the real creators of artistic works, while allowing the public at large to enjoy what is in the final analysis our common cultural heritage.

[Updated 2016/04/20 to add an additional paragraph on the ways in which works of art become to some degree public property.]

Cruz Versus Drumpf: Shot Or Poisoned

In my last post, I talked about the two candidates still running to be the Democratic nominee for US president, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and why I still find it hard to choose between them. I am still vacillating on that front, as Bernie’s better stances on most of the issues are to at least some degree balanced by Hillary’s comprehensive and detailed approach to governing. But of course, they are not the only two people running for President. There’s also the Republican field, which has been reduced to four candidates, all of whom are terrible. That’s a point we should clear up right away; just because John Kasich, for instance, looks mature and even moderate next to his juvenile insult tossing opponents doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be a terrible president. Most of his stances on the issues are awful, and even on the few where he is less extreme he is still more conservative than either of the Democrats. The recent dropout Rubio, even if he wasn’t completely hopeless in other ways, is even worse on the issues than Kasich. But as bad as these two are, and as bad as all the candidates who dropped out earlier were, what’s particularly appalling about the Republican race is that it seems to be shaping up into a race between the two absolute worst out of a terrible slate of candidates. I refer, of course, to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, or as I (taking a cue from John Oliver) call him, Donald Drumpf. These two are so bad that even many Republicans find the choice an awful one: senior Republican senator and former candidate Lindsey Graham said a couple months ago that choosing between them was like choosing between being shot or poisoned.

Like so many other people both in and out of America, I am barely able to countenance the idea that either of these two individuals could actually become president of the United States, but if I force myself to do so, the difference comes down to this: it is fairly easy to predict just how awful a Cruz presidency would be, while I don’t think anyone can seriously claim an ability to predict with any certainty what a Drumpf presidency would be like. I don’t even think he knows himself, though he no doubt thinks he knows. He could be a lot better than Cruz (not a high bar) or he could be even worse. While the Republicans clearly have a rather different idea than I do of what a terrible president would be like, for most of the Republican establishment and a large percentage of ordinary Republican voters, it seems to be Cruz’s relative predictability that makes him the slightly more palatable choice – even Lindsey Graham recently admitted that if he had to choose, he’d support Cruz. Personally, I wouldn’t say the same, as I think that unless Drumpf fulfills the worst possible guesses as to how he would behave in office, i.e., actually trying to institute some kind of fascist dictatorship, Cruz might be more dangerous, simply because he has much more of an idea of what he wants to do, and it’s pretty much all awful. Having said that, even at best Drumpf would be an incompetent embarrassment who would let all kinds of intolerance run wild, and that might be just as bad as Cruz’s systematic destructiveness. So really, even with a gun to my head – and if either of them gets in, there will be even more guns in America than there already are – I couldn’t really pick one over the other. Really, it is like choosing whether you’d rather be shot or poisoned.

Ted Cruz is scary for a great number of reasons. Most obviously, there is his ideology. This is a guy who preferred to try to shut down the government, regardless of how many people it hurt, in a clearly futile effort to prevent the implementation of a health care reform which used Republican ideas (rather than superior approaches such as a single payer system or at least a public option) to try to ensure that the vast majority of Americans could get health insurance. In his faux filibuster on the issue, he even – and apparently without any awareness of the irony – read the Dr. Seuss story Green Eggs and Ham, about repeatedly refusing to try something and in the end finding out you like it. This is also the guy who as solicitor general of Texas fought tooth and nail to keep a man in prison even though a sentencing error meant he had been given 16 years when it should have been two. This is the guy who called for “carpet bombing” ISIS, showing either a complete disregard of the civilians living in ISIS-controlled areas or total ignorance of what carpet bombing is. This is a guy who openly associates with anti-gay extremists, who seemingly opposes any type of restrictions on guns and openly spreads conspiracy theories about the government trying to take guns away from people, who doesn’t believe the science of climate change and opposes regulations aimed at keeping everyone’s air and water clean, and who would cut taxes for the rich while severely cutting programs that help those in need. He’s also the son of a man who gives speeches calling for Christians to seize “dominion” over everything. And all this is ignoring his character, which is such that one of his college roommates declared he’d rather pick someone at random out of the phone book to be president than see Ted Cruz in the position, and fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham joked that if someone killed Ted Cruz and the trial was held in the Senate, the killer would get off. Given that his ideology is awful and he is so dislikable that even fellow Republicans who share at least a large part of his ideology can’t stand him, it’s a wonder that anyone without a similarly warped ideology would seriously consider voting for him for the most powerful position on Earth.

So it’s hard to imagine anyone who could be considered a worse choice for president than Ted Cruz – except maybe the guy who is currently beating him in the race for the Republican nomination. On a few issues, Drumpf is actually more moderate than most Republicans. He says that the Iraq war was a mistake and that former president George W. Bush (aka Dubya) should be blamed for it; on the other hand, his statements about the Iraq War and the aftermath of 9/11 were used mainly as a club to attack Bush’s brother Jeb, so it’s questionable how much this really tells us about Drumpf’s attitude toward military adventurism. There are certainly some indications that point the other way, as I will get to later. He also was the only Republican to admit that Planned Parenthood does plenty of good work (though he’d defund them anyway) or that money is corrupting politics (noted in the context of his bragging about his own ability to buy politicians). Some of his past statements and associations from the days before he got deeply into politics indicated some support for liberal positions and politicians, though it’s unclear how much either his past or current statements represent genuine convictions.

Amazingly, I have seen a few self-proclaimed progressives (or possibly right-wing trolls posing as progressives) argue that we’d be better off with Drumpf winning than Hillary Clinton. They seem to have one or the other of two arguments. One is some variation of the following: Clinton is so completely a tool of corporate interests (rather than, say, someone has her own mind but unfortunately listens to both progressives and corporate types and thus tends to come down in the middle on many issues) that a vote for her is a vote for oligarchy, or perhaps that she really is a centrist but in any case only by letting the other side win will the corporate hold on the Democratic party be broken. This is an easy argument to make if you are not one of the millions of people who will be hurt by a Republican presidency. If these people think four years of a Drumpf (or Cruz) presidency is worth going through in order to transform the Democratic party, they should tell that to the millions of people who will lose health care, the millions who will lose food stamps, the millions who will see their Social Security benefits reduced or taken away, the millions who will be stuck working for inadequate wages, all the women who will lose the option of a safe abortion and even some forms of birth control, the LGBT Americans who will face continuing discrimination and may well lose the rights they have so recently won, the millions of undocumented people who will live in even greater terror of being seized and deported than they already do, and all the people who will be hurt when the Republican winner’s pro-wealthy policies tank the economy. And all this is assuming the worst fears about a Drumpf presidency don’t come true. Even if some people would consider the election of Hillary as president a step backwards, it should be obvious that a Drumpf or Cruz presidency would be a giant leap backwards, and it’s not clear that the US could recover from it.

Another argument I have seen completely ignores the differences between Hillary and Drumpf on domestic issues and focuses on Hillary’s relative hawkishness. The claim here is that based on a few more isolationist statements by Drumpf he would be less likely to involve the US in a war. Even if this was true, the probable disastrous results of a Drumpf presidency domestically would be enough to change the calculations of any thoughtful person. What's more, it ignores the most urgent and important international issue: climate change. Yes, Hillary’s limited support for fracking makes her less than perfect on this issue (though she is no worse than Barack Obama in this regard, and she has stated that she wants to let local fracking bans stand), but anyone who thinks there is not much difference between her and Drumpf - or the other Republican candidates - really isn’t paying attention. This is an issue that can’t wait another four years, considering the damage that can be done by going backward on it. Cruz and Drumpf don’t even admit that climate change is actually happening, and Kasich, the only remaining Republican candidate who grudgingly acknowledges the reality of the issue, would still be a lot worse than Hillary. For the sake of the whole world, not just the US itself, we can’t afford to wait four years on climate change.

Furthermore, it’s far from clear that Hillary would really be more dangerous on foreign policy than Drumpf; in fact, given some of his statements, the latter is likely to be worse in many ways. He has declared that he thinks the US should not merely “go after” terrorists, it should go after their families as well, which would clearly be a war crime. He has also said the US should use interrogation methods “worse than waterboarding”; since waterboarding itself is already a form of torture, he means he advocates using even worse forms of torture. He also wants to tear up the Iran nuclear agreement, which is not an action that will promote the cause of peace in that part of the world. Then there’s his general attitude of blustering against any foreign nation he considers a problem in any way, such as China and Mexico, which he proposes to make pay for the wall he wants to build to keep out all the “rapists” and other bad folk he claims they are sending to the US. How he will make them pay we don’t know, but given his unpredictability, we could be talking about a repeat of the invasion of Mexico by the US in the 1840s. And it isn’t exactly reassuring that when he was asked who his foreign policy advisers are, he refused to name anyone, but said his main adviser was himself, “because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” Since the overall impression he gives is that he is not particularly knowledgeable about foreign affairs and not even all that well versed on basic facts of world politics and geography, the fact that not only is he acting as his own foreign policy adviser but cites such specious reasons for his self-confidence should be terrifying to anyone of sense. Anyone expecting him to be some sort of peace-loving isolationist who will break the stranglehold that the military-industrial complex holds over US foreign policy is clearly fooling themselves. Also, it’s worth remembering that as much as US foreign policy seems to be all about military intervention and such, it does distribute a fair amount of foreign aid that sometimes at least does do some good. Hillary Clinton would be likely to maintain or even expand such aid. It is seems very unlikely that Drumpf would increase foreign aid, seeing how little he cares for foreigners of any sort; he’s far more likely to cut it. Given all these points, even if one were to decide one’s preference on the issue of foreign policy alone (which would be absurd, given the importance of climate change and numerous domestic issues), why would anyone prefer a pro-war crimes, pro-torture, clueless, blustering megalomaniac over a knowledgeable, experienced leader like Hillary, no matter how hawkish they may think she is?

Of course, even if one were to completely ignore the worst statements Drumpf has made on the issues and view his positions in the most positive possible light, there are still many reasons no one with any brains should consider him acceptable for the job of US president. First of all, there was the issue that he first used to attract support from the right wing fringe, namely the questioning of President Barack Obama’s birthplace. Just like anyone who claims to believe the world was flat or only a few thousand years old or who claims humans never really landed on the Moon or the Holocaust never happened, anybody who expresses any doubt whether Obama was born in Hawaii clearly has such a poor ability to reason logically based on actual facts that they are absolutely unqualified for any kind of major leadership position. While it is possible that Drumpf only pretended to believe the birther nonsense, even pretending to believe something so stupid is enough to disqualify him.

Then of course there is his crudeness, his boorishness, his negative stereotyping and outright racism, and his blatant encouragement of violence against those who oppose him. No one who even indirectly encourages his followers to punch or rough up protesters belongs on even a local political stage, much less a national one. And it isn't just his supporters; even his campaign manager was seen to roughly handle a female reporter (one from the extreme right wing "news" site Breitbart, no less). His appeals to white supremacism, while even more indirect than his incitements to violence, are equally disturbing, especially since the combination has helped encourage some to engage in actual hate crimes. It is no wonder that he is attracting the open support of white supremacist groups. This, plus his megalomaniac behavior, his apparent disregard for the rule of law at least where he personally is concerned, and actions like asking people at his rallies to raise their hands and pledge to vote for him, has led many to compare him to fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini. Whether he would attempt to seize the type of dictatorial power they did once they got into office by democratic means, or for that matter how far he would really go in attacking minority groups like Latinos and Muslims is uncertain – it’s possible he’s just using such talk in a cynical ploy to rally support from the extreme right wing. On the other hand, early on even Hitler’s anti-Jewish ravings were dismissed by some as rhetoric used to get support rather than his actual convictions. How much Drumpf really means the worst things he says is not clear, but even if he doesn’t really mean them at all, simply saying them in the first place is bad enough.

This brings up another point about Drumpf that should rule him out in the minds of intelligent people: he’s an inveterate liar. I find it astounding that some people will call Hillary Clinton a liar in spite of any particular evidence that she is more evasive or given to prevarication than most politicians or even most people; in fact I’m sure far more lies have been told about her than by her. Drumpf, on the other hand, lies all the time, blatantly and without shame. He’ll say he never said something when he is on record as saying that exact thing, sometimes just a few days earlier. He repeated a completely false claim that thousands of Muslims cheered in New Jersey when the World Trade Center towers fell on September 11, 2001. As John Oliver pointed out, he claimed several times to have rejected an invitation to Oliver’s show, even though they never invited him (and they don’t generally have guests anyway). He claimed that some of the protesters that have been hit by his followers have thrown punches first, despite lack of any evidence that any of them has done so. During the TV interview where he refused to forthrightly disavow the endorsement of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, he claimed not to have heard the question properly because of a faulty earpiece, and yet his specific response was “I don’t know David Duke” proving that he definitely heard the name clearly – and so the claim that the earpiece was the problem was a lie – and his response itself was either a lie (since it’s impossible that he didn’t know who David Duke was, as he himself had spoken of Duke in the past) or a deliberate misreading of the question (since he obviously wasn’t being asked if he knew Duke personally). Examples of lies he has made in the course of this campaign are easy to find; just a look at his statements that have been rated by the site PolitiFact will reveal that a huge number have been rated some degree of false. While every candidate has made at least a few false or misleading statements in this campaign (Cruz is another egregious offender), no one can match Drumpf as king of the liars.

Lastly, despite all Drumpf’s talk about his brain and how smart he is, what I’ve seen of him has not been particularly impressive in the intelligence department. His speeches are almost incoherent and in the few examples I’ve seen of his Twitter battles with critics he is quickly reduced to tossing juvenile insults. He retweets blatantly false information from highly questionable sources (such as his tweet about homicide rates involving African-Americans that originated with a neo-Nazi group). While everyone gets a few facts wrong from time to time, he doesn’t seem to do even the barest minimum of fact-checking, and he is far too ignorant on many issues to spot obvious falsehoods for himself – if he even cares about the truth of his information in the first place, which is open to question. In any case, given that his complete lack of political experience means he would be learning on the job (business experience – an area where his record is far from the wonderful thing he makes it out to be – is not at all the same thing, especially when we keep in mind that a government should not be run like a business), this lack of judgment or even decent reasoning ability makes him a terrible choice. Whether such a megalomaniacal, narrow-minded, bullying liar who would have no idea how to do the job would be better or worse than an unpleasant, narrow-minded, power-hungry creep who would have at least some idea what he was doing (i.e., Cruz) is a difficult question. What is beyond doubt is if either becomes the Republican nominee, it is essential that the Democratic nominee wins the general election, or else we're all in trouble.