Wikipedia 24 hour blackout planned - protest over SOPA and PIPA

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0.../?ref=business

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

Alan Browne <> wrote: >
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...o-go-dark-on-w
ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business

Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation of
the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution,
on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country under martial law?
Land of the Free la-de-da.

On 01-16-2012 18:37, paulfuchs@porkain'tkosher.oink wrote:
> Alan Browne<> wrote:>
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...o-go-dark-on-w
> ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business
>
> Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation of
> the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution,
> on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country under martial law?
> Land of the Free la-de-da.


All of us. But NDAA (I assume that's the evil you're referring to)
doesn't violate the entire Bill of Rights, just a portion of it.
Hopefully the Supreme Court has enough gumption to call their bluff.

--
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
— Peg Bracken

In article <jf2n44$gl0$>,
Wes Groleau <Groleau+> wrote:

> On 01-16-2012 18:37, paulfuchs@porkain'tkosher.oink wrote:
> > Alan Browne<> wrote:>
> > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...ns-to-go-dark-
> > on-w ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business
> >
> > Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation
> > of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the
> > Constitution, on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country
> > under martial law? Land of the Free la-de-da.
>
>
> All of us. But NDAA (I assume that's the evil you're referring to)
> doesn't violate the entire Bill of Rights, just a portion of it.
> Hopefully the Supreme Court has enough gumption to call their bluff.

Ironic that as a liberal I am hoping for the most activist conservative
SCOTUS of my lifetime to contradict the most conservative Congress
(abetted by one of the weakest presidents) of my lifetime...

--
"The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in
order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And
then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as
if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"
- Dalai Lama

In article <>,
Alan Browne <> wrote:

> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...ark-on-wednesd
> ay-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business

If feasible, it would be even better to have a continual blackout on
Wikipedia for inquiries from .gov sites.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

On 01-16-2012 22:19, Tim McNamara wrote:
> Ironic that as a liberal I am hoping for the most activist conservative
> SCOTUS of my lifetime to contradict the most conservative Congress
> (abetted by one of the weakest presidents) of my lifetime...

I thought I leaned toward conservative. But I don't see conservatism in
SOPA or PIPA or NDAA, I see stupidity and outright evil.

And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary? Wants judges
called on the carpet for unpopular opinions? It's not unpopular
opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public
opinion instead of the Constitution.

And Newt tells me Mitt Romney and John Kerry are the same because they
both speak French. Glad he's keeping me informed of what's important,
so I don't need Limbaugh any more.

--
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
— Peg Bracken

In article <jf2vqm$m1o$>,
Wes Groleau <Groleau+> wrote:

>
> And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary? Wants judges
> called on the carpet for unpopular opinions? It's not unpopular
> opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public
> opinion instead of the Constitution.
>
No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but
pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or
through, the justices who were "getting in my way".

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman:
> No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
> at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but
> pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or
> through, the justices who were "getting in my way".

Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests of
the country in mind. Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething
hatred that lives to this day among so-called conservatives (the
opposite of "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as
we have seen all too often, regressives further no interests except
those of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me laugh!
That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From where the
regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be thankful for
centrists like Obama who represent the majority of Americans, who
themselves stand squarely in the center.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article <> ,
Kurt Ullman <> wrote:

> In article <jf2vqm$m1o$>,
> Wes Groleau <Groleau+> wrote:
>
> >
> > And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary? Wants judges
> > called on the carpet for unpopular opinions? It's not unpopular
> > opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public
> > opinion instead of the Constitution.
> >
> No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
> at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but
> pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or
> through, the justices who were "getting in my way".

The twenty-four hour blackout protest is a futile, poorly conceived
gesture that is counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating.
Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia leadership are employing a flawed
strategy against an opponent that frequently employs the same flawed
strategy against others. To wit: this government punishes the sitting
regimes in other states, whose actions it opposes, by imposing trade
sanctions and embargoes against them. Sadly, and predictably, the trade
sanctions effect no change in the regimes. They serve only to deprive
and harm the population of that state.

Similarly, Wikipedia's twenty-four hour blackout will influence the 535
immoral demagogues' voting decision on SOPA / PIPA by nil, but will
deprive their own patrons of their service. This is tantamount to
punishing their customers for the actions of a third party. I contend
that the large majority of people who will encounter the message on the
Wikipedia site during the twenty-four hour period will scratch their
head, wonder "what does that mean", not investigate SOPA / PIPA further,
and then continue with their uninformed lives. There is no gain for
Wikipedia in their actions. It's truly a pedantic act. How immature.
How pitiful.

Wikipedia could have, and should have, taken the moral high ground by
putting some skin in the game. They could have requested to testify in
front of congress. They could have written position papers and then
published them on their site prominently. They could have requested
interviews with print and broadcast journalism. They could have
requested interviews with the more potent blogosphere. For people who
are busy, they could have created a quick link on their site in which
visitors could enter their email address, to which Wikipedia could have
sent their position papers, thus allowing busy patrons to gain
visibility and knowledge of the issue at their leisure. Instead, they
have chosen a method that constitutes the first refuge of the
incompetent: mindlessness and abdication of responsibility. Sitting on
the sidelines, complaining, whining, doing nothing of significance or
positive consequence to address the issue. Only hurting those whom they
claim to serve. Sounds like government.

Wikipedia, you failed on this cause.

--


Kurt Todoroff

Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not coercion.

In article <170120120832286247%>, Davoud <>
wrote:

> Kurt Ullman:
> > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
> > at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but
> > pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or
> > through, the justices who were "getting in my way".
>
> Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests of
> the country in mind.

No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and
did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in
his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he
could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) let
him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it.

Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething
> hatred that lives to this day among so-called conservatives (the
> opposite of "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as
> we have seen all too often, regressives further no interests except
> those of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
> jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me laugh!
> That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From where the
> regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be thankful for
> centrists like Obama who represent the majority of Americans, who
> themselves stand squarely in the center.

Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me take
a napkin and clean that spittle off your face) and you conveniently
ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP breaking the
filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights Act of LBJ's
would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the GOP caucus at
the time voted for the Act than did the Dems.
I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in
the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the
personal leve.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz