More on SOPA

Last night, I made a post about SOPA. Admittedly, it was kind of a last minute, "it's late and I'm tired" kind of job. While that post is certainly relevant, I think the issue warrants a little more attention. And, after some thought, I've decided I will not similarly "censor" this post.

Is it because my feelings have changed on the matter? No, I assure you that they haven't. The censored post is a good indicator of what we have to fear if this bill goes through. So it does illustrate a point for those who might be more apathetic toward this issue. However, it also alienates others who won't bother clicking to uncensor it.

I do thank the major websites that blackout in protest of SOPA, such as google, craigslist, wikipedia, and several others. It raises awareness in a big way. It lets the apathetic crowd know a startling reality - that this is what the internet could actually be like if some have their way.

A lot of people feel this may just be alarmist talk. Perhaps it is... after all, the Patriot Act for example hasn't brought about martial law... yet. But like the Patriot Act, it opens up a wide net. It is unconstitutional. There is no due process. Stay tuned kids, 'cause it's going to get scary.

SOPA was more or less written by lobbyists. The stated goal is to shut down international piracy websites. What does it define as such? That's where it gets murky.

Sites can be shut down on suspicion of piracy.

That's right. Like I said, no due process or anything. This blog could and likely would be shut down for any number of reasons. If they wanted to give a reason, it could be for linking to news stories and giving my own commentary on them. Or it could be done so because I'm seen as competition. But they don't even really have to have a reason. Perfect way to bully people out of business if they don't have resources for a legal battle.

Do you enjoy sites like Wikipedia? Fark? Non-mainstream news sites? Political blogs? Youtube? Social networking (eg, facebook, myspace, livejournal, etc)? Satirical sites? Well, those would all be in very real danger, should SOPA pass. Even something as broad as google might be in danger for not taking an active enough part in blocking stuff. And do you like open source software? Forget about that. I rather suspect that open source software is one of the biggest reasons that SOPA came about.

For those unaware, open source software is software that was created by geeks down on their luck. It started with Linus Torvalds. He had used Unix in college, and liked it quite a bit. He wanted to buy it, but couldn't afford the very hefty price tag it carried. Then he had a thought: he realized that he was, by trade/training, a computer programmer. So he started in creating his own version of it. Others, like-minded, joined in the making... adding stuff, taking stuff out, tweaking code. It became a big community project. The end result of this is what we now know as Linux. Similar to Unix in most of its workings, although now more user-friendly. Oh, and did I mention that it's free? That's the definition of open-source software - its source code is open to all, and free to all. Other popular open source programs are GIMP (image manipulation... Adobe hates this one), OpenOffice (a suite of office programs... Microsoft hates this one), and one you've probably all heard of - Mozilla Firefox (a web browser, and probably still the biggest competitor Microsoft's Internet Explorer has). Now, these programs may be similar, but they are not the same as the expensive programs they provide an alternative to. But that's really one of the big problems with SOPA. It allows these companies to censor their competitors who lack the funds for a legal battle. And if they complain that said programs are too similar, then they are hypocrites. Especially Microsoft, who took the idea of Windows® from Apple.

This is the reality we're faced with. This bill is being supported by those who have the funds to lobby for it and to put up extended legal battles with anyone who opposes them, and by politicians and others who really don't know much at all about the internet or how it works. It's opposed by all those who realize the very real dangers it has.

I urge you all to go to AmericanCensorship.org for more information about how you can participate and add your voice to the growing outrage.

The Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

Sad to say, the differences between the two main parties are fewer than either of them would like to admit. Democrats tout themselves to be liberal and progressive, while Republicans tout themselves to be conservative and in favor of small government.

If one looks at the dictionary definitions of the two party names, or perhaps their root words, we go a little further in-depth as to the original intentions that brought the parties into existence. The word "Democrat" obviously refers to "democracy," which means government by the people, and most likely a free electoral system. As for Republican, it just as obviously refers to the belief in a republic, which means government by representatives of the people. As you can see, the two definitions are virtually interchangeable today, and I doubt that more than a handful of people (including those leaders who align themselves with one party or the other) know the difference. Historically, a democracy would refer to more direct rule by the people, where a Republic would mean rule by representatives who are thought of as perhaps being wiser or more educated than the people.

With this, the Civil War would be a good example to illustrate this difference. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and rather progressive for his time. He went against what was popular when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was actually a Democrat, believing in states' rights to secede from the union, in keeping the popular institution of slavery, etc. It could perhaps be described as ironic now that the parties seem to have switched roles, with Republicans talking about secession due to Obama's presidency, and Democrats being the main driving force in Washington for civil rights movements that aren't always popular.

I'll say this bluntly: both parties want big government, though one of them denies this.

With Democrats, you get big government in the form of a nanny-state. Perhaps well-meaning, but still restricting liberties "for your own good." This is where you start seeing excessive regulation, like toys in kids' meals at fast food restaurants being banned, cartoon character mascots on kids' cereal boxes being banned, gun regulations that suggest that no one is responsible enough to really be trusted with guns. By definition, these would actually be more Republican ideals than Democrat ideals, as it is suggestive of a sort of elitism. But again, dictionary definitions simply do not apply to today's reality.

The Republican style of big government tends to be theocratic in nature. The Republicans tend to legislate on moral issues rather than simply sticking with the common good. This meddles in the freedoms and liberties of the people just as much as the Democrats' nanny-state ideas. The Republicans in recent years also has shown a tendency to be big spenders, same as the Democrats. Just a difference on what they spend the money on.

My own thought is that we are adults. I spent eighteen years being treated as a child by my parents with no alternative to simply accepting it. I didn't go through all that just to be treated as a child by the government that supposedly knows what's best for me, either from a Republican or Democrat perspective. I believe in freedom, and with freedom certainly comes responsibility. I also believe in compassion... but compassion in helping someone get back on their feet as opposed to making it easier to stay off one's feet.

If you agree, then it's up to you to demand the change rather than simply accepting what you're offered, like a well cared for child. Don't let a party or anyone else tell you what to believe.