January 20, 2012 at 12:13 P.M. My sympathies to all of those who lost everything in fires in Union City, New Jersey. I can neither confirm nor deny that some of the property lost in those fires belongs to Senator Menendez and other local political or legal figures, possibly through intermediaries. I hope that no one will be hurt in such incidents in the future (if there are any). I further hope that there will be no more anti-semitic attacks in New Jersey. However, as to future fires in Hudson County and additional hate attacks, I am concerned that we will see more such incidents in the days and weeks to come. I urge one and all to read James Baldwin's fine essay, "The Fire Next Time."
AP, "Websites Go Dark to Protest Anti-Piracy Bill," in Newsday, January 19, 2012, at p. A8 and http://www.newsday.com/nation .
Jenna Wortham, "Protest on Web Takes On 2 Bills Aimed at Piracy," in The New York Times, January 18, 2012, at p. A1.
Jonathan Weissman, "Web Rises Up to Defeat Bills Seen as a Threat," in The New York Times, January 19, 2012, at p. A1.
"On-Line Piracy and Political Overreach," (Editorial) in The New York Times, January 19, 2012, at p. A22.
"LOS ANGELES -- In a move that heightens the growing tension between Sillicon Valley and Hollywood, Wikipedia and other websites went dark yesterday to protest two congressional proposals intended to thwart on-line piracy of copyrighted movies and TV programs." (Newsday.)
All I had to discover to oppose this cleverly disguised attempt to curtail free speech is the names of the sponsors of this legislation: Marco Rubio (R) and Peter King (R), with token Democrat support, are not politicians who will go down in history as great civil libertarians concerned about the free speech rights of the "little guy." They care even less, it seems, about copyright laws. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
In fact, the so-called "On-Line Piracy Act" and "Intellectual Property Act" are aimed at enhancing law enfocement control of the Internet by permitting government to shut down websites, ostensibly on the basis of Americans' affiliation with (horrors!) "foreigners," but actually to control the dissemination of radical political opinions which are often found among those same annoying foreigners who presume to disagree with us on any given issue. ("Little Brown Men Are Only Objects For Us" and "John Rawls and Justice.")
To read books by foreigners and radicals (Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, J.K. Rowling, Judith Butler, or even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) while presuming to discuss their ideas has become a category of guilt in America's national security state and, soon, grounds for a one-way trip to Guantanamo -- or assassination for unspecified reasons -- since this is a power over life and death that is already available to America's chief executive, until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Justice Thomas is bound to dissent from any decision aimed at enforcing Bill of Rights protections.
Republicans warn that we must guard against the nefarious influence of foreign fundamentalists and possible terrorists -- like David Cameron of Great Britain, perhaps. Mr. Cameron along with other "extremist" leaders of strange countries with many little brown persons -- including, possibly, Angela Merkel whose homeland, Germany, now contains countless individuals formerly from Islamic nations who, Republicans insist, are never to be trusted. ("G.E. Moore's Critique of Idealism.")
Congress is not going to side with Hollywood against Sillicon Valley. Rather, Republicans are trying to "arrange" for the U.S. government to side against citizens expressing opinions critical of the massive law enforcement machinery put in place after 9/11 that is intended to monitor and "control" our intellectual activities and expressions. We all live in Foucault's "Panopticon" these days. ("Marco Rubio Lies About His Past!" and "Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me'" then "Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz" and "Michel Foucault and the Authorship Question" also "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")
Given my philosophical interests and writings, I am confident that my sites will be among the first to be shut-down, probably without due process of any kind or a single warning, followed by my disappearance and torture at the hands of large and smelly Cubanoids from Miami seeking instructions from a man identified only as "Marco." (Again: "What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review" then see Liam Neeson in the movie "Taken." Also: "Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
It is the very people who have plagiarized my writings in the past and who have done damage to my sites through what (until now) was illegal hacking, who will benefit from these laws by being licensed to go after writers disagreeing with Iliana Ros-Leghtinen or Bob Menendez. The faculty at Harvard University and most good schools is endangered by such unrestrained power designed to transform our best universities and think tanks into clone-like versions of the University of Miami. ("Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!" and "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!")
Not everyone disagreeing with the Cubanoids is a Communist, an Al Qaeda terrorist, nor a homosexual for that matter. If it is true that Mr. Rubio is gay, incidentally, then he should be free to reveal the fact without expecting this truth to affect his political viability. How's your drug-dealing brother-in-law, "Marco"? ("Hermano': An Evening With Christopher Hitchens" and "Abrazo.")
The government will be delighted to destroy the writings and websites of sane people concerned about the dangers to our democracy from intrusive and privacy-violating government law enforcement or security efforts while protecting the sites of insane persons -- Republicans like Mr. Perry or Mr. Ginrich -- in the interest of abstinence from sex by teens and prayer in schools. None of us will be safe or free if these Republican dreams of hyper-security are realized.
Any text with the word "sex" in it will, immediately, become suspect if Ms. Ros-Leghtinen has her way. One can only shudder at the content that a person of Mr. Menendez's intellectual caliber and cultural level is likely to censor. It is said that when Senator Menendez strolls into as room his knuckles graze the ground. ("Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!" and "'The Reader': A Movie Review" then "'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review.")
Peter King (R) from Long Island let the proverbial "cat out of the bag" when he remarked that this proposed legislation will " ... give LAW ENFORCEMENT [emphasis added!] the power to seize foreign sites ..." or to shut down U.S. sites that link to "forbidden" sites. Sites may be forbidden because of their political content which may create a danger of "conflict" or a perceived threat to our "national security." Yep, that'll be me. ("New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court," "New Jersey's Judicial and Political Whores," and, once more, "Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
Journalists warn that " ... tinkering with Internet freedom leads into dangerous territory" that could result in even more on-line censorship and cybercrime. This proposed legislation -- knowing Mr. Rubio's record, I would not be surprised if his efforts were aimed, specifically, against me and other radicals -- will give hackers a new way to wreak havoc on-line by intimidating people who presume to disagree with his Right-wing views. Censorship rarely comes from the Left in America. ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!" and "American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles" then "Babalu and Free Speech Too!")
"For months, it seemed as if Congress would pass an on-line piracy bill, even though its main weapons -- cutting off the financing of pirate web sites and making them harder to find -- risk censoring legitemate speech and undermining the security of the Internet. But the unmovable corporations behind those bills have run into an unstoppable force: an outcry by Internet companies led by Google and Wikipedia that culminated in an extraordinary on-line protest Wednesday." (N.Y. Times, 1-19-12, p. A22.)
As a victim of plagiarism, I ask you to please oppose this frightening attempt to deprive all of us of our freedom of speech on-line. Let us pray that American lawmakers will have the good sense to reject these proposed laws. Amen. God Bless America.
