SOPA: it's not just about soup anymore.

As you are all aware, a recent bill by Congress, known as SOPA, is trying to censor the internet. What may have started out as an attempt to stop illegal pirating of music to protect the copyrights of Hollywood musicians and artists has become censorship of free speech which resembles oppressive nations that the US openly scrutinizes for such censorship.

What really concerns me about this bill is how few people know about it. I had to tell my self-proclaimed "I know everything about everything" older sister about it, and as an devout Google-r and Facebook-er, she should really know about this. It seems to me that only people who are really interested in politics or the news or have enough free time to muck around the depths of the internet are aware of this. Tweens trying to post pictures of their future husbands Justin Bieber and Taylor Lautner--don't know about this bill. Teens tweeting their favorite song lyrics or posting a funny meme to their friends' wall--don't know about this bill. Young adults sharing articles and posting philosophical quotes to their Facebooks--don't know about this bill. What they also don't know, is that they won't be able to do any of these things under this bill.

One of my favorite websites, Reddit (which I do not recommend going to if you're a major procrastinator like me because it has so many wondrous and distracting things...), has take the responsibility upon its whole community of users to fight congress and keep this bill from passing. So far, they have launched a boycott of the host GoDaddy.com because they were a creator a supporter of SOPA. After Reddit got tons of users and companies to switch their domains away from GoDaddy, GoDaddy changed its view on SOPA and now publicly opposes it.

Through Reddit's influence, other companies like Nintendo, EA, and Sony (who also received a menacing letter from the hacking group Anonymous, basically threatening to destroy the company) also dropped or at least mitigated their support for SOPA.

Taking inspiration from Reddit's leadership and action on this issue, many other websites have decided to take a stance against SOPA through a self-induced blackout. This means that for at least a day, the website will be inaccessible to users except for a message that will appear on the homepage telling users about the dangers of SOPA and telling them to contact their congressman. Possible websites to do this include: Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, Twitter, and maybe more. A popular website, Tumblr, has already included a pop-up message on their page with information about SOPA and successfully initiated almost 90,000 calls to congress from its users.

I can't help but think that congress underestimated the American public and avid internet users. It seems to me like they thought that this bill would pass through legislation unnoticed and they could continue doing what ever they want. This probably comes from their complete lack of understanding about the internet. One congressman described that internet as a series of tubes. Not only that, they have no internet experts and to give a perfect comparison, "it's like going into surgery and performing an operation with no nurses or doctors." However, this bill has erupted a major response from the internet community and it is amazing to see that there are more people on the internet than trolls and Justin Bieber fangirls and they're taking action--and I'm really interested to see what will happen.

There have been rumors that the bill will be debated on January 24. This is also rumored to be the date of the blackout. Let's hope that congress realizes that 95% of the country they legislate for is against them. 

Do you think SOPA will pass? Will there be congressman so stubborn and money hungry to pass the bill even with so much opposition? What would happen if it did pass? Do you think Obama will veto it if it gets to him? Would a blackout of popular websites be effective? Would it communicate the right message to users? Have you noticed that most news stations (at least our local  ones that I keep an eye on, anyway) have not even mentioned SOPA? Why do you think that is?

NDAA? Sounds more like HUAC...

The Senate recently passed the National Defense Authority Act and it's a pretty scary thing.

Under this act, anyone who the governments says is a terrorists can be held in military custody "without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of the Military Force."

Uh, what?
No trial?
Pretty sure that violates the 6th Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees a right to trial....

What's worse is that one of the creators of the bill defends it by saying that this bill only gives the government the option to withhold a trial, it wouldn't force it to.

This bill gives the government a whole lot of power. They simply have to accuse you and present "evidence" to the judge and that's it. No judicial review. Just you. In prison. Maybe forever. It is unconstitutional and violates our fundamental values, including that of right to a trial.

What may be even scarier is the fact that American citizens would be susceptible to the effects of this act, too. For example, if it passes, we could all get called terrorists for my writing this blog and your commenting on it. And if the government decided we were terrorists we could be put in military detention indefinitely or until the Friday after NEVER.

Does anyone else think this sounds a lot like the Red Scare with Communism? Now it's just a Terrorism scare? Do you think there are ANY potential benefits to this? If so, would they weigh out the costs? Would it be worth it to sacrifice American liberties? Does anyone realize that this completely and blatantly violates the 6th amendment? Anybody? What is going on with America?

I'll think of a quippy title for this later.

So finally, girls have equal opportunity to succession of the throne in Britain. I know we briefly discussed this in class, but it is pretty significant because this rule undoes about three-hundred years of British monarch tradition—and without baby steps!

Albeit, it took them a really long time for this aspect of gender equality, but it is impressive nonetheless.

With this new law, not only could William and Kate’s potential daughter be queen over her potential younger brothers, but the law that states that the monarch has to marry a Roman Catholic was also overturned (Britain, Mrs. Garber’s AP Comparative Government Class would formally like to welcome you to 21^st century). This is a huge deal because we all know how rapt Britain is with their history and traditions and taking things slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

Changes to and consideration of the following documents will ensue: >the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Coronation Oath Act 1689, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706, Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937. This change is a great one and will require a lot of revision of previous rules.

This plan may not be implemented for about four years, but so far has received unanimous support and realization that the old law was seriously obsolete in modern times.

What you may not have known about this is that members of Parliament have been trying to pass a bill almost identical to this at least eleven times in the past few years. Why now? Is it because of William and Kate (and how much everybody loves them)? Do you think the Queen supports it (not that it matters)? Seriously, why now? Will Britain start changing other things now? Do you think the House of Lords or House of Commons had more control on this issue? 

What's the deal with negotiations? Pun intended.

Since we’re on the topic of the UK in class, I figured I would blog about something that was going on with them.

A lot is actually going on with them. The Unions are planning a “one-day stoppage” on November 30 to protest the government’s plans to raise pension contributions.

According to the two articles that I read (the links will be at the end), the government is planning to lay off one million public sector workers “who are due to retire in the ten years from April 1, 2010.” These people won’t have to work anymore but will keep their salary. Additionally, the government is trying to get a more generous rate for pension value build-up. The government is doing this because people are living much longer and the government can no longer afford the system. The government argues that this is a good solution because the pensions are generous and comparable to those in the private sector.

The protestors say that this isn’t enough…it’s a good start but not good enough to convince them that they will have good enough pensions. Their plan for the protest is to gather at one o’clock and make as much noise as possible. They say the government has become deaf to their negotiations so that are forming One Voice at One to try to get the government’s attention through bells, whistles, car horns, singing, chanting, and many other obnoxious noises.

The government’s plan doesn’t sound that bad to me, but I don’t know how well it will hold up long-term. There is some improvement that needs to be made, but this seems like a good foundation. But it is slightly concerning that the government seems to be offering this up as a “this is as good as it gets” offer. But what more can they do? It doesn’t seem to me that the union protestors fully understand the economic situation in UK and the in the rest of the world, i.e. EVERYONE’S ECONOMY SUCKS (basically).

Also, these benefits are just for the public sector. Do these protestors know that no one in the private sector get this economic insulation and these benefits?

Now, what do you guys think?

Should the government just go on with their pension plan, work out the minor kinks, and risk having millions of public sector protesters?

Should the unions try to work with the government more before going to the extreme measure of protesting?

Is either side being unreasonable in the negotiations?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15549321

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/uk-britain-politics-unions-idUKTRE7A146V20111102

Bureaucracy: The Milk Invader. Climbin' in Your Milk Cartons. Snatchin' Your Money Up.

http://www.bipac.net/issue_alert.asp?g=IDFA&issue=outofmymilk&parent=IDFA

Dictionary.com defines bureaucracy as 1) government by many bureaus, administrative, and petty officials and 2) excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus or administrators.

In class and in the textbook, the perks of bureaucracy are that, ideally, they promote competence, consistency, fair treatment, and freedom from political manipulation.Ideally, this occurs because bureaucratic decisions are made based on rules and regulations and the bureaucracy itself is made up of “experienced and expert personnel of the top civil service.”

However, the ideal view of bureaucracy isn’t exactly the reality. The textbook refers to these as “negative connotations associated with the word bureaucracy.”It then lists the following problems: they can be inflexible, insensitive, and inefficient bureaucrats that find few incentives to actually to work hard and more often seek to satisfy personal interests (this, of course, is an overgeneralization….there might be some good bureaucrats out there!). These bureaucracies have only increased in size, though many are obsolete and they are sucking money from a government that really should downsize them.

There is a bureaucracy today that is imposing itself on your life and creeping right into your house and dunking itself in your cereal bowl.  This bureaucracy is a part of the dairy industry and is not only completely useless today, but it was formed over seventy years ago (keep in mind pre-sophisticated highway systems and pre-fancy refrigerated trucks)  in response to problems during the Great Depression with making sure everyone had an adequate, safe, and fresh supply of milk. The bureaucracy was formed to guarantee this supply to satisfy local demand as well as keep a uniform pricing system within the milk market.

Mind you, that was the 1930’s. Today, with modern technology in farming, refrigeration, and transportation, there is no need for such concern. There’s little to no trouble keeping grocery stores across the country stocked with clean, safe, Grade A milk. Instead of dismantling, they are currently (as in current...like right now) trying to pass a Federal Milk Marketing Order to continue their control over prices of milk by raising handling fees that eventually get passed on to the consumer. 

But why the bureaucracy? It is made up of hundreds of paid employees that today, are simply inflating milk prices. It is an excessive waste of money for the government and American families and it is offering no obvious benefit to anyone other than the members of the bureaucracy. Additionally, the passage of this Order could only hurt American families that are already struggling with their budget. 

This bureaucracy is one of many that are obsolete and is simply milking the government for money.