Kissing the Free Internet Goodbye?

Two bills currently await a vote the Congress of the United States--one, Senate Bill S968, called the "Protect Internet Piracy Act" ; and the other, House Bill HR3261, called the "Stop Online Piracy Act".  (Some may find it rather curious that they're called "acts", as logically, until a bill is voted into law, it's only a "bill".)  Though two different bills, they share similarities in both their intent and their language (sometimes known as "legalese").  Ostensibly, both these bills propose to regulate internet piracy, and clamp down on "rogue sites".  But, latent within vague language typical for Congressional legislation these days, lies the possible seeds of the ultimate destruction of what we've taken for granted as the freedom of the internet.

As summarized by Wikipedia, the House bill "would allow the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as copyright holders to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.  Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the infringing website; barring search engines from linking to such sites and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites.  The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyright content a felony.  The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement."

The reader here, may want to read the above again, if he doesn't quite appreciate the full import of this bill, for it signifies the end of the freedom of the internet as we know it.

To be sure, the Feds haven't been waiting around for this bill to pass, as this morning, the they seized 150 domain names for selling counterfeit products, bringing the total domain names seized in the past year to 350.  Though, if the Feds seizing 350 domain names isn't enough to spark fear in the hearts of internet lovers, the passage of either of the two Congressional bills surely will, for it will then involve not only copyright holders (seeking court orders), but also ISPs (seeking to limit their liability for providing service to any site they deem infringing on intellectual property laws).  Passage of either of these bills means the Feds will again, subtly pit big corporations against small businesses.  The issuance of court orders will, as they usually do, set up enforcement with a "shoot now and ask questions later" scenario, and thus chip another chunk out of the block that is due process.

This office can find no individual who supports either of these bills, yet the House bill, currently in committee, appears to be on a fast track, as the New York Post reports that "sources familiar with the legislation said it could come to a vote before Christmas."

If you like the internet, and want to keep it free, you may want to inform your government that you oppose this bill.  Otherwise, we all might be kissing our free internet goodbye.

Is War against Iran Inevitable?

The Obama administration, in apparent concert with British and Canadian authorities, issued a statement yesterday, condemning Iran's nuclear development activities, and announcing a new round of sanctions.  "As long as Iran continues down this dangerous path, the United States will continue to find ways, both in concert with our partners and through our own actions to isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime," the statement said.

The concert of statements follow a report issued earlier this month by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that asserts that Iran is developing nuclear weapons--that they are building hi-tech precision detonators essential for a nuclear device, and that they are devloping a uranium core for a nuclear warhead.

None of this is really unexpected, since the west has long suspected Iran of secretly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but the signs of an escalating conflict grow with each passing day.  Israel has already suggested that "the time has come" to deal with Iran, and has not ruled out the use of its own military forces in the process.  Yesterday, the United Kingdom cut ties with all Iranian banks, and Canada banned the export to Iran of all goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industries.  The Russians claim that the IAEA is biased, and had the "set goal to deliver a guilty verdict."  Iran itself claims that the report is politically motivated, and based on false evidence cooked up by American intelligence services.  Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the head of the IAEA a "pawn of the U.S."

The whole affair, so far, bears a remarkable resemblance to the events that led up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which leads many of us who remember clearly those events to wonder if some kind of war with Iran is inevitable.  We shall see.  In the meantime, we shall keep a close watch.

The E.U. on the Brink

Don't look now, but it appears Europe, as a confederation of European nations, is crumbling.

Ostensibly, the beginning of its troubles started with the sovereign debt crises in what are called the "PIIGS" countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain), but particularly with Greece's debt crisis, made much worse not only by the widespread use of credit default swaps (sponsored, of course, by U.S. financial "experts"), but also by a 110 billion Euro bailout.  Monetizing Greece's debt, however, hasn't helped, and a deal is in now in the works for another bailout.

If Greece's debt troubles weren't difficult enough for the European Central Bank to handle, now Italy faces a debt crisis of its own.  The problem with Italy, however, is that it's not Greece.  In fact, its economy is the third largest of the European Union, behind Germany and France.  Their debt is now well over 2 trillion euros.  They were thought to be too big to default, but now, they're too big to bail out.  Though it hangs by a thread, the Euro is all but dead, as British PM David Cameron asserted that the currency was facing it's "moment of truth." 

Greece's and Italy's fiscal woes are not without their political consequences, either.  Prime Minister George Papandreou resigned yesterday, as Greek faith in their government collapses.  Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi has pledged to do the same.  Economist/Bankers are taking over in their stead.  French citizens, now facing austerity measures of their own, thanks to their own contributions in attempts to keep Greece afloat, all but assume that President Nicolas Sarkozy will be replaced in coming elections by socialist candidate Francois Hollande.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel is calling for a "breakthrough to a new Europe."

No one is sure, of course, exactly how the breakup of the E.U. will play out, but in all likelihood, it's not going to be pretty.

The Power of the Pretext

When one peruses the history of mankind, it is difficult not to notice certain patterns--how, in the rise and fall of civilizations, as historian Carroll Quigley noted, there are periods of migration, expansion, and decline; how a civilization's expansion is directly proportional to its economy and upward social mobility; and how wars between civilizations begin, and how they are terminated either through conquest or truce.

Those of us who studied those patterns suspected well enough back in 2002, that the persistent claims by both the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Labour government that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction ("WMDs"), whether true or false,  would inevitably lead to military action in Iraq.  Those suspicions were confirmed when the Bush administration mobilized troops the region, while claiming that such mobilization was merely a precautionary measure, should Iraq's government at the time prove resistant to U.N. efforts to search for the WMDs. 

Few seem to remember that no WMDs were found, but most do remember the invasion itself, and in all likelihood consider the justification for that invasion and "regime change" to be simply the removal of Saddam Hussein.  This is because of what we may call the Pattern of the Pretext, especially in regards to empire civilizations going to war--that Iraq was suspected of harboring WMDs was merely the pretext for invading, occupying, and establishing a new government in Iraq.

We note this pattern, because now the Obama administration has a pretext of its own in regards to Iran--on Tuesday last, the administration claimed that an Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to the United States Adel Al-Jubier was foiled by FBI and DEA agents.  Assuming that story is indeed true, while we might give credit to the FBI and DEA, the administration went farther, and took sudden steps to ensure not only that the entire world was aware of the plot, but that it should unite in at least isolating Iran through sanctions.  Deja vu--back in 2002, the Bush administration went to the United Natons with supposedly incontrovertible evidence of WMDs in Iraq, determined to convince the world that those WMDs could be used in terrorist plots.

Say and think what you will about Iran.  Believe what you will about Iran and nuclear capablities and terrorism.  We do not write this post to disclaim such.  One may even speculate that banging the war drums provides for a nice diversion from the Occupation protests.  But know this:  the war drums are most certainly being banged, and, as with the war drums that have been banged before, they are being banged with the drumsticks of the pretext.

Letters from The Occupation

The image above will stand alone in this post for now, as it pretty much says it all.

Some Input for the Occupation Movement

Historically, the most effective movements focus on one, fundamental, principle change: in the United States, the founding fathers focused on independence from England; in the nineteenth century, the big movement focused on slavery's abolition; in the early twentieth century, there was women's sufferage and prohibition.

With their official list of grievances now posted, there is little doubt, anymore, that those "occupying" Wall Street have one thing on their mind--they are dissatisfied with corporate greed:  "We come to you at a time," they declare, "when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments."  Very well.  With this single statement, they declare their cause.

Few could argue that many of their more specific claims are not prime examples of the behavior on the part of corporations that have contributed significantly, if not implicitly caused, the economic difficulties the United States, and indeed the world, now face.  Moreover, and as importantly, their claims touch a nerve in many people who may consider themelves victims of such corrupt behavior, as ever more register their support for the cause, in ever more locations in the U.S., as well as other countries.

However, though they have made it clear enough that the source of their discontent is corporate greed, they seem to fail to recognize that the government, which they effectively "run", is no less implicit in the corruption that greed fosters, and that the only real difference is what form the greed takes, in the collusion between corporations and government.  They mark their disgruntlement with entities that, among other things, have taken bailouts at taxpayers' expense, but fail to make accountable the politicians who authorized the bailouts, and thus squandered taxpayer funds.  Indeed, greed is the ultimate impetus in the collusion inherent in the corporatist structure, but while corporations are greedy for profits, we must not forget that the politicians that facilitate those profits are no less greedy for power.

With the attention that it is now getting, the Occupation movement that is now spreading has a grand opportunity to affect a great and radical change in this country, and to do that, all they need do is to address the one, fundamental issue that harbors at the core of the corruption that is now the source of so much disgruntlement.  But it is not greed.  Greed has forever been and will forever be something between a man and his God, if he has one.  It is a nasty side effect of all economic structures.  It is a moral issue, not a political issue, and if the history of the United States shows us anything, it is that a people, even unified in their intentions, can neither dictate nor legislate morality.

We have already discussed in these web pages what we believe to be the real and fundamental causes of the ever widening economic disparities facing the American people.  For what it's worth, consider this our input to the serious and important discussion that you have brought to the attention of the world.  As we explained in our last post here, we are with you in spirit, for we, too, consider ourselves part of the 99%.  But we cannot continue participation in a dicussion that remains blind to the realities of the world's Corporatocracies, and looks to government to solve the problems that government is complicit in creating in the first place.

The "Occupation" of Wall Street

Back on Constitution Day, September 17, inspired by the Arab Spring movement, a group of about 1,000 activists began a protest in the streets of Manhattan, in the vicinity of Wall Street.  Stemming from the group calling itself Anonymous, as well as other groups dedicated to civil disobedience, the protesters marched and waved their placards with no conspicuous leader, and no real actionable agenda.  As the protest maintained its peaceful intentions, it received little media attention.  Yet, the activists of this protest were nonetheless passionate and unmovable--so much so, that the protest not only continues to this day, but has gained in strength and size, and has even spread to other cities, as those sympathetic their cause have now convened to protest in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and Washington. 

Although leaderless and without a concrete agenda, the protest itself, called in some circles the new American Revolution, is devoutly dedicated to raising awareness of the greed and corruption endemic in the American economic and political system.  To put it simply, these protesters are fed up.  The official Occupy Wall Street website summarizes that "the one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."  Their live feed at times shows clips from films such as the 1976's Network, where news anchor Howard Beal encourages his television audience to go to their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Such emotion has apparently tapped into the general sentiment of an increasing number of Americans.  Hence, the movement has attracted activists of all types and creeds, each demanding their own resolutions--Leftists call for raising taxes on the rich and on corporations, ending corporate welfare, and support for trade unions; Libertarians call for an end to the Federal Reserve System, an end to corporatism, and an end to all wars.  These protesters are Jews as well as Muslims, Christians as well as Atheists.  And their numbers are growing.

And as its size and scope increases, so does the media attention, if only for the lack of media attention it has received thus far.  When the protest first began, MSNBC's Kieth Olbermann exclaimed, "if that's a tea party protest in front of Wall Street about Bernanke [...], it's the lead story on every network newscast.  How is that disconnect possible in this country today with so many different outlets and so many different ways of transmitting news?"  But, yesterday, October 2, now into the third week of the protest, roughly 700 protesters were rounded up and jailed for blocking a traffic lane of the Brooklyn Bridge, and face charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, which simply could not go unreported by most of the news agencies.  The mass arrest has even sparked a debate about whether the NYPD wasn't acting a little heavy-handed.

It is indeed difficult for anyone who has witnessed the monetary and political collusion and corruption that has taken over the economic and political system of the United States to not support the underlying sentiment of those who dedicate their lives and livelihoods to this protest.  We are with them in spirit, if not out there with them, with our own placards.  This may or may not be the beginning of another American Revolution, but as long as it lasts, it will nonetheless put a test on us all, to see who is on which side of the current and rising politicoeconomic fence, as either one must side with the corrupt corporatist elements of the monetary and power structure, or must ultimately pledge their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor."