You forgot the part where the bill's sponsor is the chair of the judiciary committee, and the committee itself is stacked with cosponsors. Plus there's the fact Smith is trying to pull procedural shenanigans by having the vote on the Wednesday before Christmas when Congress is out of session.

Isn't this like when Ted Stevens was in charge of making rules on things he didn't know anything about, but was doing his best to remember his lines?

So it's a bill that will limit speech and freedom...you know it will pass without any problem.

I hate how people think they are free, you are property of the highest bidder. Capitalism has turned you into neo-feudalistic slaves owned by the plutocracy. Hope you'll enjoy yet another piece of your freedom taken away from you, good day.

Will we ever be free of old white men and their relentless and unending panic at things they don't understand?

Smith doesn't care if he kills internet jobs. He's rich so it's nothing to him. Are there any U.S. Senators that aren't millionaires?

Yeah, tell me the media companies don't buy off politicians. Next one will be AIPAC has the USA's best interests in mind.

The more these buttholes keep trying to ramrod this through, the more likely that the ACLU can have the whole thing overturned as unconstitutional. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was less odious and more airtight than this fascist piece of sh*t, but it couldn't stand up to a legal challenge.

The more laws i see like this, the more likely I hope that record execs and Hollywood bigshots get set on fire as they are caught out in public.

I went on the FEC site but couldn't find the data they quoted.
(In all honesty I didn't do a thorough job.)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all dollars are created equal, that they are endowed by their creditors with certain unalienable Rights. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among corporations, deriving their just powers from the consent of the largest share holder. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the share holders to alter or to abolish it

Bribery is still illegal, as far as I know. Why do lobbyists still walk free?

Hmm, I thought I had read somewhere that Health Professionals donated Democratic, and Health Companies donated Republican. Wonder if that's still true for the party as a whole.

FuturePastNow: Bribery is still illegal, as far as I know. Why do lobbyists still walk free?

Because they have enough money to get away with it.

FuturePastNow: Bribery is still illegal, as far as I know. Why do lobbyists still walk free?

Because lobbying is a first amendment protection. The whole "petition the Government for a redress" thing. As far as "petitioning" being a euphemism for "bribery," look to the right wing and their kooky assertion that the expenditure of money is the same thing as speech.

FuturePastNow: Bribery is still illegal, as far as I know. Why do lobbyists still walk free?

You clearly don't understand American society. We don't tolerate bribery, at all, period. That's for other countries. What WE have is "campaign contributions", which are completely different from bribery and work nothing like it at all, because "bribery" is one word and "campaign contributions" is clearly a two-word phrase, so they can't be the same thing.

DNRTFA

I saw the headline and thought that they were talking about sopapilla at Don Pablo's Mexican restaurant. Was I far off?

And the fight over extending the payroll tax cut is being used as a distraction while SOPA is passed.

ilikeracecars: Hmm, I thought I had read somewhere that Health Professionals donated Democratic, and Health Companies donated Republican. Wonder if that's still true for the party as a whole.

aside from lawyers and entertainment, almost everything on there skews republican. Line #14 is ESPECIALLY telling. Banks/Finance too.

Vertdang: ilikeracecars: Hmm, I thought I had read somewhere that Health Professionals donated Democratic, and Health Companies donated Republican. Wonder if that's still true for the party as a whole.

aside from lawyers and entertainment, almost everything on there skews republican. Line #14 is ESPECIALLY telling. Banks/Finance too.

100% goes to either Democrats or Republicans. Heads they win, tails we lose.

xanadian: *googles*

Oh.

Yeah, already wrote my congrescritters about it. Sure it'll have a profound impact. :-/

It will if you attached a check for a six-figure sum.

Vertdang: aside from lawyers and entertainment, almost everything on there skews republican. Line #14 is ESPECIALLY telling. Banks/Finance too.

Don't be so sure, when Obama isn't busying socializing America, the Right assures me he's been moonlighting as a super secret capitalist in the back pocket of the banks.

It's also why they should get hung for treason.

pippi longstocking: Capitalism has turned you into neo-feudalistic slaves owned by the plutocracy.

Calling the US system "capitalist" is roughly equivalent to calling the USSR "communist". We're far closer to a fascist state than a Smith-type capitalist system. At best, much like the USSR, we identify capitalism (or, in the USSR, communism) with a set of ideals that are positive. We then claim to be the enforcers of those ideals and their pinnacle. Then we completely ignore them and do what's best for the plutocratic kleptocracy in the near term.

FuturePastNow: Bribery is still illegal, as far as I know. Why do lobbyists congressmen still walk free?

FTFY.

Farking While Farking: It will if you attached a check for a six-figure sum.

Damn, I can only give them one figure.

Obama will sign this one also. But I was told in NDAA thread, don't do anything wrong and you won't vanish.

Is this the thread where ITG's quote the second amendment with subtle implications of an armed revolt?

t3knomanser: pippi longstocking: Capitalism has turned you into neo-feudalistic slaves owned by the plutocracy.

Calling the US system "capitalist" is roughly equivalent to calling the USSR "communist". We're far closer to a fascist state than a Smith-type capitalist system. At best, much like the USSR, we identify capitalism (or, in the USSR, communism) with a set of ideals that are positive. We then claim to be the enforcers of those ideals and their pinnacle. Then we completely ignore them and do what's best for the plutocratic kleptocracy in the near term.



"Capitalism" doesn't mean "positive ideals." It just means private ownership over the means of production. Make no mistake about it; we are capitalist. But nothing about private ownership means we should allow private capitalist interests to replace democracy with a market forces.

t3knomanser: Calling the US system "capitalist" is roughly equivalent to calling the USSR "communist". We're far closer to a fascist state than a Smith-type capitalist system. At best, much like the USSR, we identify capitalism (or, in the USSR, communism) with a set of ideals that are positive. We then claim to be the enforcers of those ideals and their pinnacle. Then we completely ignore them and do what's best for the plutocratic kleptocracy in the near term.

This is part of why I inwardly laugh at mouthbreathers who reject Marx out of hand.

Mostly because Marx also (though this part never gets discussed, wonder why) argued that in order for the proletarian revolution to occur, the entire world would have to be capitalized and industrialized, and national borders and identity subsumed in favor of global capitalism. Until that occurred, the division between bourgeois and proletariat would also be along national lines by economic development. If I remember right, this was largely elaborated upon in correspondence between Marx, Engels and Russian revolutionaries as to why their interpretation of Marxist thought (later to be codified by Lenin) would inevitably fail.

Which, an astute observer would note, is a world that is rapidly approaching vis-a-vis free trade agreements, electronic transactions allowing capital and business to flow freely without borders, and especially with capital flowing readily into countries to rapidly develop them on the back of cheap labor and no regulation which really puts Marx's arguments in Das Kapital into perspective.

DarnoKonrad: "Capitalism" doesn't mean "positive ideals." It just means private ownership over the means of production.

Don't fool yourself, capitalism in the West and particularly the United States is viewed and treated as a political and moral philosophy as well as economic. Making money is considered virtuous, the means to making money are considered by and large irrelevant, and wealth is considered a necessary condition to live a good life. Our entire social and political structure is built around those presumptions. That's precisely why "market forces" have supplanted democracy and (little-R) republicanism in this country.

Capitalism is an inherently amoral theory. It posits no moral maxims. Treating the sole maxim capitalism posits -- the accumulation of wealth is society's and the individual's end -- as if it were moral is erroneous and deplorable, especially for the same people who claim Christianity as their religion.

exatron: And the fight over extending the payroll tax cut is being used as a distraction while SOPA is passed.

I guarantee you the vast majority of American voters give not one shiat about SOPA and, so, need no distraction. They know virtually nothing about it and care just as much. That's nerd stuff that doesn't affect them as far as they're concerned.

If there's one thing that trumps American cowardice, it's intellectual laziness. These companies will eventually win this fight, by and large, because Americans are too lazy and stupid to spend even a small amount of time understanding the things they use on a day to day basis. As long as it turns on when they hit the power button and lots of pretty lights dance on the screen, they're perfectly happy with whatever shiat sandwich they've been handed. Hell, you can't even get some people to change their farking oil in their car on a proper schedule if you don't have a little light to tell them to do it, do you think they understand the implications of a bill like this?

Eventually, because of their lack of mental rigor, they'll be buying devices with DRM infused at the level of sets of logic gates. They'll make it the de rigueur technical standard and even those of us smart enough to know how incredibly dangerous to our rights DRM is will have almost no choice short of making our own electronics because it will be all you can buy. The media companies will be above the law and have, literally, direct and immediate control over every multimedia device in your home or any device that could potentially be used as a media device even if it's not currently one.

So, you think we'll even get fair warning, or will we just wake up one morning and Fark, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Tumblr, et al will just be gone?

so this pretty much says no internet privacy whatsoever right? so if you have a usenet acct or an account with fileserve or some other site like that you're farked right? they have to turn over their client lists?

DarnoKonrad: It just means private ownership over the means of production.

It means a great deal more than that, in the same way socialism is much more than community-owned means of production. Otherwise mercantalist economies would be "capitalist"- and they're very much not. There's a reason Adam Smith had to write several large treatises on the subject (of course, according to modern "capitalists", Smith's calls for restraints on economic actors to prevent the sorts of problems we deal with today would be "socialism").

that bosnian sniper: This is part of why I inwardly laugh at mouthbreathers who reject Marx out of hand.

The biggest contribution of Marx, to my mind, was the recognition that labor creates value. Orthodox thought was more along the lines that value was inherent in the goods themselves. But it's also worth noting that Marx wasn't laying out a blueprint for a utopia- he was forecasting. He was predicting what he saw as a likely future.

Ishkur: t3knomanser: Calling the US system "capitalist" is roughly equivalent to calling the USSR "communist". We're far closer to a fascist state than a Smith-type capitalist system.

To be fair, Capitalism loves Fascism far more than any other present system so yeah... we are closer to a fascist state, which means we are more Capitalist than we have ever been.

This is where it gets us.

WHAT?!? Are you trying to blame Capitalism for SOPA?

Ishkur: we are closer to a fascist state, which means we are more Capitalist than we have ever been

Capitalism and fascism cover some of the same territory, but they have very different ideas about the role of the state. Economics does not exist on a spectrum, with socialism over here and capitalism over there, and your economy is a dot on the line someplace between the two, any more than politics can be expressed as a competition between the "left" and the "right".

that bosnian sniper: Treating the sole maxim capitalism posits -- the accumulation of wealth is society's and the individual's end

That's the Randian flavor of capitalism. Smith recognized that the accumulation of wealth was the goal of many participants, and specifically outlined a system in which these traits could be channeled and controlled, thus preventing excess wealth.

One would hope that this were common sense, but it isn't: the accumulation of wealth is a positive feedback loop. Once you have wealth, it's significantly easier to get more. Conservative investments on $1M could generate enough in pure returns to replace my current salary- and I make decent money! Taxes, investment failures, and several other mechanisms exist as a negative feedback on this natural positive feedback loop.

The problem is that we have a group, as you say, that's turned economics into a moral enterprise. Prosperity gospel: god rewards the just with riches, so if you're rich, you must be pretty just. They don't view the economy as a system that must be maintained so that it remains in service of the people, they view it as a benevolent god- caprice and punishment arise only when we do not adhere to god's principles, to wit, "socialism!!@111!!"

Splinshints: If there's one thing that trumps American cowardice, it's intellectual laziness.

Which brings us to this. I don't think it's fair to blame the individual for intellectual laziness. The people who benefit from the status quo recognize that an educated and wise populace are the greatest threat to the status quo. So the people in power arrange things such that we don't have an educated or wise populace. Americans have been raised on the pap of populism, and everything about our mass media reinforces that. You can throw the word "elite" around as an insult and nobody blinks.

Ishkur: t3knomanser: Calling the US system "capitalist" is roughly equivalent to calling the USSR "communist". We're far closer to a fascist state than a Smith-type capitalist system.

To be fair, Capitalism loves Fascism far more than any other present system so yeah... we are closer to a fascist state, which means we are more Capitalist than we have ever been.

This is where it gets us.

Wouldn't capitalism prefer a free and unregulated Internet?

xanadian: Yeah, already wrote my congrescritters about it. Sure it'll have a profound impact. :-/

Yeah I told mine I'm not voting for them if they vote for SOPA.

Like they give a shiat.

SOPA is one of the many reasons we need to change how lobbying works. No group should be able to buy and pay for a congressman. This is complete and total bullshiat and the congress is blind to the disaster this bill will be to the United States.

Why will SOPA get voted for?

Because people in power like that power. They want more of it (if only to create the illusion that they're "doing something" about the "problem"). They will NEVER give it up.

The Alien and Sedition Acts (the first one, anyway) was found unconstitutional. Ditto the CDA of 1996. Ditto parts of the DMCA. I'm sure there have been many more Acts of Congress that the Courts smacked down (and a few glaring errors).

Let's hope those parts SOPA and the NDAA get stricken.

// though Roberts has a chubby for authority
// ditto Alito, Scalia and Thomas
// do I hear a Kennedy? A Breyer?
// I haz a sad

Lux Lambert: So, you think we'll even get fair warning, or will we just wake up one morning and Fark, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Tumblr, et al will just be gone?

And then suddenly, there are thousands of angry internet users on the Mall in DC, hundreds of thousands.

I have my trollface mask ready for the event!

This guys has a good break down on SOPA:

Link (new window)

Actually, to move back to the point, I've been thinking about how to architect a new DNS system that isn't vulnerable to these sorts of attacks. It'd need to be distributed, and it'd need to allow only the owner of a domain to modify entries about the domain, as well as manage collisions. That's easy to say, but hard to design.

that bosnian sniper: DarnoKonrad: "Capitalism" doesn't mean "positive ideals." It just means private ownership over the means of production.

Don't fool yourself, capitalism in the West and particularly the United States is viewed and treated as a political and moral philosophy as well as economic. Making money is considered virtuous, the means to making money are considered by and large irrelevant, and wealth is considered a necessary condition to live a good life. Our entire social and political structure is built around those presumptions. That's precisely why "market forces" have supplanted democracy and (little-R) republicanism in this country.

Capitalism is an inherently amoral theory. It posits no moral maxims. Treating the sole maxim capitalism posits -- the accumulation of wealth is society's and the individual's end -- as if it were moral is erroneous and deplorable, especially for the same people who claim Christianity as their religion.

There's a lot of elaboration to be done on this point, but suffice it to say that while there is no moral component to the economic theory, there are moral consequences to any economic theory. Those of Capitalism are ... dubious, to be sure... but there's an argument to be made that a rising tide lifts all boats. Granted, the poor are all clinging to one 5x5 rafts lashed out of their furniture while the wealthy all have bulletproof yachts... but the tide has risen and many things have been made easier through division of labor and the innovation necessitated by Capitalism. That's not the endgame, of course, which is the condensation of wealth in a handful of God-Kings intent on maintaining power as capital through any means necessary, including private armies... but meanwhile we have big macs, TV's, can talk to one another across vast distances with cell phones and the internet (for now)...

Sweet... right?

I've got an iPod like a pirate ship,
I'll sail the seas
with fifty thousand songs I've never heard-
And all the best of them go
Fa la la la la la...
Fa la la la la la...

heinekenftw: And then suddenly, there are thousands of angry internet users on the Mall in DC, hundreds of thousands.

Somehow, I don't think taking away the one distraction that keeps us from storming the castles and overthrowing the government is a good idea. Farmville/Fark/Angry Birds/Facebook/Etc. are keeping the masses subdued. Remove that and you'll have anarchy.

/RTFA? No, YOU RTFA! I'm busy making shiat up over here...

t3knomanser: Smith recognized that the accumulation of wealth was the goal of many participants, and specifically outlined a system in which these traits could be channeled and controlled, thus preventing excess wealth.

Exactly -- Smith realized capitalism was not a moral philosophy in itself, and in fact was a corrupting influence on morality, and therefore had to be regulated from without.