Me writing in the comment thread:

There is a lot I disagree with here and if everyone on the Internet who opposes SOPA is spouting nonsense about it, their opinions will be easily dismissed. Nothing in this post explains what the mechanisms of SOPA have to do with "eliminating low cost competition." SOPA supporters are quick to point out that SOPA doesn't have anything to do with domestic content hosting sites like YouTube. This is not the problem.

The backers of SOPA want a way to go after foreign websites that violate US laws. Those websites might be legal in their respective countries. So, SOPA's answer is to prevent Americans from accessing them, and to prevent American companies from helping them raise revenue. This is really what the SOPA supports want, and they don't see what the problem is with it. If these sites were in the US, the Department of Justice would shut them down, and although the case of Dajaz1 indicates that more checks and balances are needed, that fundamental fact is not going to change.

Articulating the problem with this does not require elaborate conspiracy theories about the content industries, nor are those conspiracy theories likely to be persuasive to the Congressmen who will ultimately be making a decision on this thing.

There have been different drafts of SOPA with different problematic provisions but I'll focus this post on what I see as the central problem.

In order to prevent Americans from accessing these foreign sites, American ISPs are going to have to buy networking infrastructure that enables them to ban websites. This is going flush a lot of money into the development and refinement of products that provide this capability. These products will become more efficient and sophisticated, and the companies that make them to seek out new markets for them and encourage other governments to require their adoption.

Furthermore, banning American users and American revenue sources from a foreign website that US businesses view as a criminal enterprise will not be the end of these foreign websites. In order to SOPA to really work, these American companies will need to go to other major economies and ask them to adopt laws that are similar to SOPA.

Its worth mentioning that discussions and tests of internet filtering infrastructure are going on in Australia. Infrastructure already exists in the UK. It was originally targeted at child pronography but the blacklist has expanded in 2011 to include sites that violate copyright, so in reality SOPA is already in force in the UK. So you get more countries deploying systems for banning access to websites, and you get more and more money flooding into an industry that designs equipment that does this.

With the cost associated with this equipment going down, and an industry out there marketing these products, they'll find wider uses in more places. More governments will be convinced to pile on the bandwagon. It will ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Articulate explanation of how SOPA came about, and how it might be stopped - Boing Boing

Claymation penguins battle outer space menace for two awesome minutes.

Pingu's THE THING - YouTube

Republicans have lots of "get out the vote" strategies - such as divisive ballot referenda. I hope they don't do this in Georgia, cause they don't need to do it here. But they will probably do it in other states, where it will help their presidential candidate. Anything that gets Republicans out to the polls will be useful as nobody cares about Obama.

On whether he'd back a bill, if one is submitted, that would ask voters to consider a constitutional amendment in support of "personhood," effectively criminalizing abortion: "It's too early to tell at this point, but traditionally I've always been very supportive of pro-life issues. Traditionally, I've always had a stance that allowing the people to vote on a constitutional amendment whether I'm for or against it makes good policy. [But] you obviously need to be very sensitive ... that it doesn't have unintended consequences."

Cagle sets priority list as session nears  | ajc.com

Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change” and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it.

I don't think that any of the Republican candidates are compelling. Most are too radical and have shot themselves in the foot in one way or the other. And Romney - who finds Romney compelling? I don't even think he really thinks what he says he thinks. He is going to be the nominee because he will be the least of evils.

The wild card is - who finds Obama compelling? Certainly not liberals who are concerned about Wall Street or civil liberties. The partisan activists are going to have a hard time getting traction this year. They might have trouble getting out the vote.

I don't think the Republicans have a good chance of winning this but as they proved in the last election, an army of people who think Obama is a socialist can win elections against an army of people who don't care and aren't going to go to the polls.

The great question in this election will be - who cares?

Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

PayPal may also require you to destroy the item and to provide evidence of its destruction.

This policy is obviously firmly detached from sanity.

Paypal orders the destruction of antique violin

“There doesn’t seem to me to be any other way to do it, except to engage with the party that won the election,” the official said, adding, “They’ve been very specific about conveying a moderate message — on regional security and domestic issues, and economic issues, as well.”

“Obviously the proof will be in the pudding.”

The administration’s willingness to engage with the Brotherhood could open President Obama to new attacks by Republicans...

U.S. Reverses Policy in Reaching Out to Muslim Brotherhood - NYTimes.com

Religious freedom is the approach most likely to maintain high levels of religiosity in the Islamic world. Francis Fukuyama has commented that “countries without established churches . . . often experience a higher degree of genuine religious observance,” an observation that has been confirmed by numerous studies.17 Fukuyama notes that mandatory religious identity “often goes on to feel like an unwanted burden,” associated with all the grievances that people have against the government in general. By contrast, when people are given the freedom to worship as they choose, church attendance rises, as does the level of charitable donations to religious organizations.

This is an interesting perspective but I wonder if muslims find it persuasive.

The Advantage to Islam Of Mosque-State Separation | Hoover Institution

Hijexx wrote:

The 1st edition of The Rootkit Arsenal, published back in the summer of 2009, included a short epilogue that raised questions about the underlying integrity of the political system in the United States. It used the metaphor of a malware infestation to discuss aspects of popular participation and means of control. In preparing the forthcoming 2nd edition, this material has been extended and explores territory that has just barely received attention from the major news outlets. Though the publisher has opted not to include this content, it has been made available here.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. But its easy to state problems. Its harder to talk about solutions.

I think its interesting that the AARP appears on the list of the top ten lobbying spenders. They certainly aren't a corporate interest group.

The central premise of this essay is that in the 1970s the corporate interests decided that effective lobbying was more important than winning elections. Part of the problem here is that the people are split between partisan groups while those with real influence lobby both sides of the isle.

So instead of trying to take back the electoral system, why not just lobby more effectively? If you've the money, its easy to hire yourself up a thinktank and start talking to people in Washington.

Who should I be giving my money to?

Public interest groups tend to be focused on narrow issues, like abortion or civil liberties or the environment.

Who lobbies for my economic interests? Better labor contract laws? Better financial regulations? More investment in basic science R&D?

RE: The Rootkit Arsenal - Lost Chapter Now Available

2. Drink more Riesling. Riesling is one of the food-friendliest wines in the world, and every wine merchant and sommelier you encounter will think you're cool if you ask for it.

Jay McInerney's 10 Wine Resolutions - WSJ.com

Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.

Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?