Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

This topic contains 93 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by Jeff Regensburger Jeff Regensburger 1 year, 6 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 94 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #470964
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM
    #470965
    gramarye
    gramarye
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Mister Shifter said:
    And in related news, The Eye of Sauron accuses Hobbits of terrorism.

    Mouth of Sauron, Bear, Mouth of Sauron. The Eye was just either an artifact or (more likely) one of Sauron’s innate powers. :-P

    #470966

    Rockmastermike
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    gramarye said:
    Mouth of Sauron, Bear, Mouth of Sauron. The Eye was just either an artifact or (more likely) one of Sauron’s innate powers. :-P

    I don’t remember “the eye” being a visible entity in Mordor in the final book (like it is in the movies), although the “searchlight” effect is described but I’m not remembering if that was actually seen or described more than just a really strong “feeling of being directly watched”. He had by that time captured one of the seeing-stones of the Númenorians, but that’s not described as being the primary source of his omniscience. The eye was used as his iconography and representative Heraldic symbol of his ‘all seeing’, like the Seal of the State of Ohio on all the state documents so in that sense it was representative of his entire political power.

    Sauron was originally a Maiar (two steps down from ‘god’), and is described in the Silmarillian as a shape-shifter. He was one of Morgoth’s (a demi god) generals. MUCH Later he was able to gain the ears of the kings of Númenor by claiming that the elves and the valar were withholding their rightful gift of immortality by keeping it too themselves and they should fight, because it’s only fair and right they should also have this gift. Under the appearance of fairness he was able to convince the Númenorians to utterly destroy themselves (except for Elendil and his sons).

    (yes, I’m getting to a point here…)

    As Sauron fled after the fall of Númenor, he lost his some power and lost his ability to appear in a ‘pleasing shape’. His next manifestation was defeated by Isildur in the great alliance that took the ring. As most of his power was locked up within the ring it was a long time before he was able to even achieve a corporal form again at all. His next appearance was as the “the necromancer” of Dol Guldur (south of mirkwood), and when Gandolf drove out “the power of sauron” from there (during his absence from The Hobbit), he’s not really described has having much more than a fleeting physical form. After his retreat to Mordor he probably farther solidified as he consolidated power (Gollum described his has having 4 fingers, so he must have had hands at least while he was torturing Gollum).

    After his final defeat he apparently still exists, but so much of his power was locked in the ring that he lost any ability to have any form here at all, but its not ruled out that he’s still subtly causing mischief. This progressive loss of physical form in the world into a still existent “power” who’s whereabouts are totally unknown is what makes him a really fantastic fairy-tale metaphor to describe why there is evil in the world!

    So used in that sense, referring to his iconographic “eye” is referring to that force in the world that drives men to do evil in the name of greed or greed of power while appearing fair and lawful. These laws we’re debating now are the very definition of doing great harm* under the appearance of what is “fair and lawful”, so yeah, the eye of Sauron is a fantastic metaphor for the supporters of this!

    Yeah, I’m a huge geek. :)

    *as a former network engineer I’m very concerned about this bill’s efforts to undermine the DoD, and other agencies and companies efforts to secure the DNS system, which is, at this point, crucial but fragile national infrastructure. The worst attacks in internet history have involved subverting that system and it must be protected from tampering for any reason.

    #470967

    captain janks
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    i feel like this is the just more of the same thing that happened when cassettes came out (omg end of the music industry) or when VHS came out (omg end of the film industry)… we didnt have the web then like we do today, so they still retained control of distribution, and the record labels, RIAA, MPAA etc could still profit.

    now with the internet though, they are pretty much obsolete. i mean, i can make music, market and distribute it myself through the web, with no need for a record company.

    THATS what they want to stop. they are desperately trying to find some way to keep themselves relevant…

    gramarye said:
    Mouth of Sauron, Bear, Mouth of Sauron. The Eye was just either an artifact or (more likely) one of Sauron’s innate powers. :-P

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK8KjVbHO9c

    #470968
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    You knew this was coming…

    #470969
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    ROFL

    double lol @ her hair likely containing cat turds.

    #470970

    TomOver
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    You knew this was coming…

    This is another straw man argument. Very few people are denying that corporations (with accountable government partnership) are a framework for many, if not most, of the goods and services upon which our quality of life depends.

    So, the problem is not corporations, per se, nor is it government, per se. Part of what is wrong is this. Corporations are used as a means to pour huge amounts of money into political campaigns, and to lobby legislators to the point where there are about 500 lobbyists for every Congressperson.

    Among other means, this is being done by way of corporations having some of the rights of natural persons, such as freedom of speech, which our federal judiciary has decided gives corporations the right to spend large sums of money to influence public policy. Citizens United pertains to unions as well. But they don’t have anywhere near the amount of money as big corporations.

    It should be common sense that so much money in politics makes our federal and state capitals, as well as our municipal governments, rife with conflicts-of-interest.

    I don’t read minds, but I venture big corporations (and big unions) and wealthy individuals tend to not spend such huge amounts of money without expecting something in return: legislators— and also those who ostensibly enforce the laws— putting the interests of a relatively few big donors before the interests of their many constituents.

    So, we have a political system in which a small minority wields a grossly disproportionate degree of power over the direction of our country. How can this be conducive to the functioning of a democratic republic?

    #470971
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Citizens united wasn’t about lobbyists, it held that the non-profit corporation, Citizens United, could air and advertise a documentary* critical of Hillary Clinton before an election.

    If new media ( Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, et. al. ) want to use their resources to spread their message, is it only bad if you disagree with the message?

    Is new media somehow different from any other corporation ( here to include labor unions )?

    And, on a SOPA related note to prevent a complete derail, there is this:

    http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/

    Seems like public outcry, sparked by new media corporate interests of course, fought against the very system you’re decrying.

    * Documentary here used loosely.

    #470972

    cheap
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    TomOver said:

    So, we have a political system in which a small minority wields a grossly disproportionate degree of power over the direction of our country. How can this be conducive to the functioning of a democratic republic?

    the solution is term limits,but people seem to want that same knucklehead they’ve been voting in office for 20 years just because he shows up at the bean dinner every year.

    #470973

    TomOver
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    Citizens united wasn’t about lobbyists, it held that the non-profit corporation, Citizens United, could air and advertise a documentary* critical of Hillary Clinton before an election.

    If new media ( Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, et. al. ) want to use their resources to spread their message, is it only bad if you disagree with the message?

    Is new media somehow different from any other corporation ( here to include labor unions )?

    And, on a SOPA related note to prevent a complete derail, there is this:

    http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/

    Seems like public outcry, sparked by new media corporate interests of course, fought against the very system you’re decrying.

    * Documentary here used loosely.

    Did you or did you not post the photo of the protester in an attempt to call attention to a contradiction or to hypocrisy?

    My point is that activists who use social media and other tools that corporations manage or control are not being hypocritical when we oppose corporations having the rights of natural persons.

    Nor are we being hypocritical when we oppose the leaders of corporations when they claim that the abstract entity in which they work —the corporation— is exercising its freedom of speech thru spending huge amounts of money to influence public policy.

    As it pertains to SOPA, the leaders within Google and Wikipedia are making their points via the communication networks associated with those entities, not by, for example, using a Super PAC for a $5 million 40 sec ad.

    The limited scope of Citizens United you cite is misplaced, as the increase in funding for campaigns in 2010 and the current campaign season indicates the ruling’s broader implications. The ruling made a bad situation even worse. Campaign finance reform has been an issue for some time—-McCain-Feingold and further back.

    We can tap dance around this all we want, but it should be common sense that the amount of money in politics creates conflicts-of-interest that are bad for our political system.

    As for derailing this thread, the fact that so many Dems and Repubs in Congress support or supported SOPA and PIPA indicates that the issue of corporate power is relevant here.

    Look not only at SOPA but at the NDAA’s provisions that undermine civil liberties, and ask yourself who the majority of people in Congress seem to be working for.

    Contrary to what some conservative commentators would have us believe, government officials generally don’t try to increase their power over citizens just for the sake of the bureaucracies in which they work. The dominant players in the private sector are also invested in the concentration of power.

    Neither the progressive focusing only on the problem of corporate power nor the conservative focusing only on big government has the complete picture.

    Sorry to repeat myself but what we have in this country is a combo of both problems. Suggested descriptive terms are ‘corporatocracy’ ‘plutocracy’ and ‘oligarchy.’ I don’t use ‘fascism’ because its meaning involves blatant racism and xenophobia, things which the US— IMHO— doesn’t have currently.

    Perhaps the US would become more of a functioning democratic republic if more of us were to see beyond the left-v-right framework with which many of us–myself included– approach public issues ?

    #470974

    Mister Shifter
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Holy Crap.

    Anonymous just took out a shit ton of websites. RIAA, US Copyright Office, MPAA, BMI, Universal Music, & more as we speak.

    The largest coordinated attack in Anonymous’ history—over 5,600 DDoS zealots blasting at once.

    #470975

    TomOver
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Mister Shifter said:
    Holy Crap.

    Anonymous just took out a shit ton of websites. RIAA, US Copyright Office, MPAA, BMI, Universal Music, & more as we speak.

    The largest coordinated attack in Anonymous’ history—over 5,600 DDoS zealots blasting at once.

    To what extent could it be that Anonymous is actually a US government-backed group for instilling fear so as to get us to willingly give up more of our freedoms ?

    #470976

    TomOver
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    cheap said:
    the solution is term limits,but people seem to want that same knucklehead they’ve been voting in office for 20 years just because he shows up at the bean dinner every year.

    Is that all that’s required for the health of our body politic, just term limits ?

    #470977
    DavidF
    DavidF
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    TomOver said:
    Is that all that’s required for the health of our body politic, just term limits ?

    Sure. Cuz with term limits, the lobbyists and the unelected staffers who would be the only ones with institutional knowledge would have free reign. The moneyed powers that be would love term limits.

    Not to mention the jobs they could dangel to term limited congressmen to vote their way.

    It would do nothing to improve things, but it sounds like an easy solution to a complex problem, so the 30 second attention span crowd jumps on it.

    #470978
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    TomOver said:

    My point is that activists who use social media and other tools that corporations manage or control are not being hypocritical when we oppose corporations having the rights of natural persons.

    Which I didn’t even comment on. Thanks for the comment, though.

    As to this:

    TomOver said:

    As it pertains to SOPA, the leaders within Google and Wikipedia are making their points via the communication networks associated with those entities, not by, for example, using a Super PAC for a $5 million 40 sec ad.

    Oh, so it’s different if the corporation uses it’s own resources rather than pays someone else?

    So, you like Fox news? Seems to be their model. MSNBC as well, come to think of it.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 94 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?