You can't tell me this man doesn't look like a turtle. Photo from flickr user PaisleyPittbull

The Republican primary, which looked like it was in danger of stabilizing last week, has dealt us a fresh surprise with Rick Santorum’s victories in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri on Tuesday. This primary season has resisted predictability all along, with early strong showings from Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, all of whom are almost certainly crazy. But the fact that the field is still so uncertain could have more to do with lack of inspiration than anything else.

All four remaining candidates – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul – face serious issues that have made primary voters uncertain of their ability to face Barack Obama in November.

Ron Paul is in the somewhat unusual position of having been in public life for more than three decades and having almost never contradicted himself. He looks like he could be a grandpa. He wears orthopedic shoes on national television. It’s hard to imagine having a beer with him, but maybe a glass of warm milk. Look past his adorably turtle-like appearance and realize that he wants to abolish the federal reserve, end birthright citizenship, and might be a racist. Paul looks less like a grandpa in a suit and more like someone who should never be allowed within fifty feet of the Oval Office.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, both of whom believe that they are the front-runner, have perhaps the opposite problem. Romney has often struggled to convince voters that he experiences human emotion, while Newt Gingrich made the unfortunate mistake of cheating on his wife while she was being treated for cancer, and then letting people find out about it. Their policies are largely in line with the Republican base, but neither has been able to create a consensus behind his candidacy despite huge campaign war chests and significant establishment support (for Romney, anyway).

Rick Santorum has gained the attention of a significant portion of primary voters, as evidenced by his victories in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri (although, his victory in Missouri was non-binding and did not award any delegates). His sweater-vest-wearing antics lend him a relatable quality that Romney (who makes $10,000 bets) and Newt (who racked up $500,000 in debt at Tiffany’s) lack. But as soon as Santorum opens his mouth, it becomes clear that he is a single-issue candidate. And his single issue is making sure that Americans everywhere are obliged to adhere to his morals, whether they like it or not.

With such a lackluster field, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to clinch the nomination quickly. As it stands, Romney is closest to that goal with 94 of the 1114 delegates needed to secure the nomination, but his lead is far from decisive.

Far from inspiring crowds of thousands with the mere power of their words like Obama, the most serious problem for Romney and Newt is that it is unclear why they are even running. Santorum and Paul both have strong convictions (however misguided) that are the driving forces behind their campaigns. Romney and Newt both have a lot of money and really want to win. But there is nothing less inspiring than someone who wants to lead the free world just for the sheer pleasure of being able to say he’s done it, and if Obama is able to rally even a fraction of the principled hope he inspired in 2008, the eventual Republican nominee will struggle to create the same fervor with a “lesser of two evils” approach.

Prop 8, officially titled “Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment,” was a ballot initiative that sought to change the California Constitution to add a new section to Article I that would read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

February 7th saw California's Prop 8 struck down as unconstitutional. | Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

As a resident of California, I can attest to this measure’s overwhelming presence in 2008. All throughout the summer, there were countless attempts to have Prop 8 removed from the ballot on the grounds that it was a constitutional revision, which can only be put before voters by legislators or a constitutional convention. These efforts were all for naught as, in the end, the cases were dismissed and the measure remained on the ballot.

When I returned to school that September, coverage of the issue had intensified. Support for Prop 8 poured in from Republican dignitaries like Arizona Senator and then-presidential candidate John McCain, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and others. California Democrats such as then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, as well as soon-to-be President Elect Obama voiced opposition to the measure.

The atmosphere surrounding the proposition was filled with a definite religious presence as well. The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints both publicly supported Prop 8, while all six Episcopal diocesan bishops in California and numerous Jewish groups staunchly opposed it. According to the exit polls, it was clear that those who described themselves as religious were those most in favor of Prop 8.

The final vote showed 52.24% in favor of and 47.76% against Prop 8. Of California’s 58 counties, 42 voted in favor of Prop 8, including–rather surprisingly–Los Angeles County, albeit by the slimmest of margins: 50.1% to 49.9%. Counties in favor were spread throughout the state, while those against tended to be along the coasts and surrounding the Bay Area. San Francisco County was by far most opposed to Prop 8, voting 75.2% against it.

Prop 8's opposition was limited when it came to the number of counties. | Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Immediately after the results were released, mass protests took place across California, including a large gathering outside an LDS Temple in Westwood (Los Angeles) and a candlelight vigil in front of Sacramento’s Gay and Lesbian Center.

Multiple lawsuits following the vote were consolidated into Strauss v. Horton, which saw the court rule that Prop 8 was valid as voted. Resulting from this was another suit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown), filed in a Federal District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiff, Kristin Perry, and her partner were denied a marriage license by the Alameda County clerk-registrar because they were a same-sex couple. Perry and her partner, along with a male couple from Los Angeles that had similarly been denied a license, joined together to sue their respective county clerks, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and two officials in the Department of Public Health.

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker heard closing arguments on June 16, 2010. Less than two months later, on August 4, he announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Prop 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. What’s more, Judge Walker asserted that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:

“When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”

Judge Walker further noted that Prop 8 was drafted based on traditional moral disapproval of homosexuality, which is not a legal basis for discrimination.

Appeals were almost immediately made and eventually scheduled to be heard by Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Hawkins, and N. Randy Smith. Oral arguments were heard on December 6, 2010 and, after delays regarding the validity of the appeals throughout 2011, a ruling was issued on February 7 of this year. The panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming Judge Walker’s decision and again deeming Prop 8 unconstitutional. Judge Reinhardt authored the majority opinion, which included the following:

“Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childrearing or possible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties…Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

The decision may be reheard within 14 days, by a full bench of judges, if a majority of all the active judges in the Ninth Circuit vote to rehear it. Also, the legal teams who argued for Prop 8 have 90 days to directly appeal to the Supreme Court.

Regardless, the feeling at the moment is one dominated by jubilation, relief, and celebration. Dozens of celebrities, including Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O’Donnell, have expressed satisfaction while gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals alike have joined together to celebrate.

Read Judge Reinhardt’s entire ruling here. 

By Evan Caughey

About Skeezics: So. Every week I (Evan Caughey) create a cartoon making fun of something involving politics, world affairs or something moderately related to something else.  In general, they are meant to make the world more bearable by showing that it is a silly place and that there is always something to laugh about.  Unfortunately, they are usually serious things, so you will only laugh until you realize it has to do with something like who your next president will be.  Anyway, enjoy.

Mitt Romney captured victory in the Nevada caucus with ease. | Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Repeating his 2008 performance in the Silver State, coupled with his dominant win in Florida on January 31st, Mr. Romney has again solidified himself as the clear Republican frontrunner for November’s pivotal presidential election. After being declared the winner, Mr. Romney took to the stage at the Red Rock Casino to deliver a speech. Buoyed by his recent successes, the former governor emphasized his focus on the general election in which he is sure to be participating: “This is not the first time you’ve given me your vote of confidence, and this time I’m going to take it to the White House.” Continuing with this confidence, Mr. Romney had fighting words for President Obama: “This week he’s been trying to take a bow for 8.3 percent unemployment. Not so fast, Mr. President.”

As far as delegates are concerned, Nevada has only a small portion of the amount needed to secure the Republican nomination, making Mr. Romney’s victory more of a symbolic one. Of course, this performance, quick on the heels of a similar one in Florida, ensures that for the rest of February, momentum will certainly be on the side of the former Bain CEO. This momentum could be priceless in dispatching chief rival Mr. Gingrich as the campaign travels through Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine this week. It was clear from Nevada’s final polls that Mr. Gingrich, once thought to pose the biggest threat to Mr. Romney, was slipping – Mr. Gingrich was not vying for a victory, but rather competing for a distant second-place finish with Mr. Paul.

Yet, characteristically, the former Speaker of the House was confident even in the face of defeat, placing emphasis on what he hopes to be an improved showing on “Super Tuesday” (March 6), when eleven states vote. Speaking to a room of reporters after his defeat, Mr. Gingrich struck a serious tone: “I am a candidate for President of the United States. I will be a candidate for the President of the United States. I will go to Tampa.” Speaking further, he more or less guaranteed that he will have caught up with Mr. Romney by the time of the Texas primary on April 3.

Despite all his words, Mr. Gingrich will not be pleased with the close analysis of Nevada’s votes, which show large support for Mr. Romney. The latter won the caucus with votes from a broad group that included very conservative voters, staunch Tea Party supporters, and evangelicals. Thus far, it has been Nevada that has had the largest share of self-described Tea Party supporters, who are considered a vital part of Mr. Gingrich’s base, but it was Mr. Romney who won a higher percentage of their vote.

In addition, exit polls reported that 4 out of 10 voters on Saturday claimed that the quality that mattered most in the candidates was the ability to defeat President Obama in November; almost 75% of those voters voted for Mr. Romney. Many voters listed the economy and its woes as their primary concern, and 60% of those voters supported Mr. Romney, lending credence to his “business experience” rhetoric.

Romney After Winning… by Evan Caughey

Fred Karger: The Anti-Romney by Annie White

Things Get Personal in Latest GOP Debate by Ross Ballantyne

Could be we colonizing the Moon come 2020? | Photo courtesy of NASA/Dennis M. Davidson

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich stirred up an odd controversy last week after announcing his plans for a lunar base. “By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the Moon,” he said to an audience in Florida shortly before the primary.

This latest scientific proposal, between his casual insistence that he would serve two terms and the sheer grandiosity of suggesting a Moon colony in such a rough economy, outshines even Gingrich’s previous scientific plans in media radar. Every critic, from fellow candidate Mitt Romney to comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, have jumped on the opportunity to ridicule Gingrich’s plans.

It certainly sounds crazy, but there might be a hint of possibility to Gingrich’s plan. Returning to the Moon is closer to reality than fantasy. In fact, building an outpost on the Moon was a U.S. plan until about three years ago. At its center, the idea is possible, but expensive.

The problem isn’t the technology, it’s the cost. The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) estimates that developing a small, four-person lunar base would cost $35 billion, not including the rocket needed to transport the lunar lander. After the station were established, the CSIS estimates another $7.35 billion a year for maintenance, which is over a third of NASA’s current budget. Especially with NASA’s recent budget cuts, no one is sure whether they will be able to afford these costs years down the road.

Gingrich is full of grand ideas, but are they realistic? | Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.

Cost aside, having people permanently stationed on the Moon isn’t complete science fiction. While 2020 might be a stretch, NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) program could be ready to take people to space by the mid 2020s. After all, six crew members, three of them American, are currently on the now-finished International Space Station. With the help of international cooperation, the six trained astronauts and engineers are conducting groundbreaking research and experiments on the station.

There’s a far stretch, however, between a four-to-six person outpost and what Gingrich is proposing. He isn’t aiming for something modest. He’s talking of a permanent colony, where people could live and travel. Once the Moon reaches 13,000 people, he said, it could apply for statehood. This is where Gingrich’s idea becomes most unrealistic. If the cost of a four-person Moon base is unattainable, it’s completely unlikely that we could sustain anything close to a colony. A Moon base is a long term commitment that will need constant funding and attention, regardless of the political environment on Earth. Especially with the economy in a tumultuous state, it’s hard to believe that the US could continually devote their attention towards the Moon while people on Earth are less than happy.

In the end, it’s not the technology that’s at issue. Funded by private companies or by multinational efforts, we could have people stationed on the moon by sometime in the 2020s (or even on their way to Mars if the SLS program is a success). A 13,000 person moon colony, though, is currently out of the question. NASA’s budget cuts have left many less than hopeful about the United States’ stake in space, so it’s refreshing to see Gingrich pushing for exploration. He’ll have to think of another way to get people excited about space, however, because this Moon plan is simply too grandiose to become a reality within his two term limit.

A recent ABC/News Washington Post Poll showed that just 13 percent of the country approves of the job that Congress is doing. From President Obama chastising the institution in Tuesday’s State of the Union to nearly every GOP candidate’s mission to paint their opponents as “Washington Insiders” (generally with a strong sense of hypocrisy), our elected officials have have done their best to tap into the anti-Congress sentiment.

Indeed, the first session of the 112th Congress was characterized by partisan squabbling. The United States nearly defaulted on its debt and the government narrowly averted shutting down numerous times as a direct result of political games of chicken. The failure of Congress to adequately address the major economic issues affecting this country is no doubt the root cause of its dismal approval rating. However, solving the financial crisis, lowering unemployment and reducing the deficit are not simple tasks that can be addressed overnight.

I approve of the hard work that members of Congress are putting in to address some of the most challenging issues ever facing our nation. I am the 13 percent.

President Obama speaks with House and Senate leaders. | Photo Courtesy of White House photographer Pete Souza via Wikimedia Commons

Simply put, legislating is not easy. In case you are a communist or Canadian and have never watched School House Rock’s “I’m Just a Bill” video, the legislative process is a long and arduous one that requires a significant amount of consensus from a wide, diverse body of legislators representing an even more diverse group of interests. The writers of the Constitution specifically designed it that way to ensure that policy is not subject to rash decisions and requires careful consideration. The trade off is that it makes the legislative process take a long time.

More often than not, members of Congress work incredibly hard to balance the insatiable demands of their constituents. In nearly all offices, countless hours are spent tracking constituent opinions, responding to constituent concerns about pieces of legislation and working with other officials to craft policy that satisfies a plurality of interests. It is naive to suggest that lawmakers are doing anything besides trying to do what will please their constituents. After all–that is what gets them re-elected.

So, what then explains why Congress has a lower approval rating than BP during the infamous oil spill of 2010? A large part of the blame falls on the media. Even the most reputable news organizations focus on the conflict and the dog fight between the two parties. While covering the dog fight may boost advertising revenue, it does not tell the full story.

It would be disingenuous to argue that there were not instances where political incentives got in the way of policymaking. A great deal of blame for the failure of the “Grand Bargain” during the summer debt talks can be attributed to the stubbornness of freshman House Republicans and the personal ambition of Majority Leader Eric Cantor who forced Speaker Boehner to fold on the deal. As frustrating as this was, remember that many of these representatives were elected on hard-line policies and were likely trying to vote along the platforms their constituents elected them into office on. The media did a much better job addressing the failure of the talks than they did at highlighting how close the two parties were to a bargain, what the public thought of the deal or what the policies actually were. This is not to say that they were right in rejecting this would-be historic compromise, but the idea that a group of rogue congressmen sought to bring harm to this nation is naive and uninformed.

By focusing on the failures instead of the successes of Congress, the media creates a vicious cycle in which if the electorate believes Congress is doing a poor job representing it, less people will participate, and Congress will indeed do a poor job of representing the public interest. The public’s cynical attitude towards the legislative process will ultimately prevent this nation from addressing its most serious problems.

This effect can already be seen in how polarized the political parties are today. With low voter turnout in mid-term elections, only the most partisan voters participate, further polarizing the political parties and thereby reducing Congress’ ability to compromise. Americans criticize Congress’ inability to meet half-way on the big issues, but voters are simply electing fewer moderate legislators who are willing to compromise.

In the end, Congress has always addressed the most serious issues. The U.S. responded with precision and force after 9/11 and has been incredibly successful at curbing terrorism in part due to increased defense budgets that originated in Congress. The financial system ultimately did not collapse because Congress passed the bailout. There is no doubt that the legislative process can be frustrating. Serious problems take serious solutions that will not come overnight–especially in a legislative process as deliberate as the U.S.’ and with Democrats and Republicans as ideologically far apart as they are today. There might be bickering and political chicken in the years ahead, but just like every other crisis of the 20th century, Congress will solve this one.

Why I Hate Congress (And You Should Too) by Annie White

The Unkindest Cuts of All: A Look at the Congress Budget Compromise by Amalie Steidley

Illustration by Allan Lasser

 The Response to SOPA and PIPA: A Corporate Quickening of the Conscience

The corporate world recently experienced a civil war within its bounds as Congress hoped to pass two repressive anti-piracy laws. If passed, these laws, namely the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), would have given the government the green light to utilize DNS blocking, a method which governments like China use to censor the internet.

As expected, mega conglomerates like Google and Facebook stood dead-set against these bills. According to such opposition, the bills were too broad to simply be acting against piracy, and could hamper freedom of speech on the Internet. The world witnessed that day many major websites putting out political statements in opposition–the most notable of which is Wikipedia’s blacking out for twenty-four hours, stating, “Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge.”

On the other side of the fight was the Hollywood lobby, led by organizations like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Bills like SOPA and PIPA would have limited the mass proliferation of movies and material which would otherwise make the industry a lot of money. Unsurprisingly, many of SOPA and PIPA’s proponents within Congress have received significant campaign contributions from the entertainment industry, and with obvious intentions.

The entertainment industry was not the only one gearing up with its mounds of capital to pass these bills, however, as many media outlets would like to suggest. It has been reported that Google alone has spent a total of $9.7 million on political lobbying in 2011, with $3.7 million spent in the fight against anti-piracy laws and a range of other issues which could dent its profits. Therefore, the fight was essentially a pitting of capital against capital, as plutocrats funded Washington to succumb to their demands.

Pundits like anti-censorship expert Jillian C. York believe that the mass online movement to oppose these bills by signing petitions like the one by Google is what influenced Congress’ decision to oppose them. Empirically, if it were true that the government listens to the demands of the people and not those of corporate interests, a big range of issues would have been solved by now. And a movement espousing the slogan of the 99% would have not pervaded this country over the past a few months.

The response to the SOPA and PIPA phenomenon has been largely problematic. The reason for this is not because it protests against censorship and promotes the right to access information without government intervention. It poses a problem because of the public’s priorities in the United States. Indeed, such an outcry as that against these bills was not seen in the slightest against the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would allow the government to indefinitely detain people for arbitrary reasons.

An interesting pattern appears where people are desensitized to the hard-pressing issues which affect our fellow human beings, yet would recoil in horror and demand action if they cannot access a website on the Internet. An image of a people perishing directly due to American foreign policy sparks little compassion compared to the heart-wrenching event of a blocked Youtube video. The evident mass awareness, the advocacy to sign the Google petition, the plethora of Twitter hashtags, and the defiant changing of Facebook profile pictures of the generally apolitical reflects the sad reality of the public’s priorities. This was all for bills that had not passed and that were too unpopular in the corporate world to pass.

Two weeks ago, Americans were commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. on his birthday. The sad reality is that his message of civil disobedience does not seem prevalent in this society today. Central to King’s philosophy of nonviolence is the idea of resistance by people to quicken the conscience of others to their cause.

In 2012, it seems that the quickest way to draw sympathy to a cause is by corporate display of dissent. Under the guise of protecting civil liberties, Google and the tech industry were able to draw the ire of the public to their cause, which coincidentally secures the continual stream of profits to the 1%.

Forget about imperialism, poverty and a plethora of other issues; the most important thing is the ability to watch my favorite show on the Internet.

I can imagine King rolling in his grave.

Op Ed: Jamil Sbitan’s “Reflections on Democracy in the Arab World” by The Quad

SOPA Battle Ensues With Major Website “Blackouts” by Lauren Michael

SOPA and the Battle Between Piracy and Privacy by Ian Moskowitz

After a controversial second-place in the Iowa Caucus and a very declarative win in New Hampshire earlier this month, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney looked poised to cement his perennial frontrunner status and virtually lock up the nomination in the Palmetto State. Instead, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, emerged victorious on Saturday night.

With 100% of the precincts reporting by night’s end, Mr. Gingrich secured 41% of the vote to Mr. Romney’s 27%. Coming in third was former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum with 17%, followed by Congressman Ron Paul with 13%.

Newt Gingrich's victory in South Carolina ensures a few weeks of highly entertaining campaigning. | Photo courtesy of Pete Souza via Wikimedia Commons

The poll results ensure what seemed almost unattainable only last week–a drawn-out, highly competitive race over the next 4-plus months. With Mr. Gingrich now finally the major player many believed he always would be–he’s claimed $1 million have been donated to his campaign in the first 24 hours since his SC victory–heat is shifting off of Mr. Romney, even if only temporarily.

Fresh off his resounding victory, Mr. Gingrich is, of course, seen as a potential frontrunner to the other candidates, who have been not at all hesitant to voice their criticisms. Mr. Romney, for one, has consistently accused the former Speaker of being a lobbyist and demanding that he release his consulting contracts related to work with Freddie Mac, an association Mr. Gingrich refutes. On a more personal level, the former governor has said this week of Mr. Gingrich that “he is highly erratic and does not suggest a stable, thoughtful course.”

Ahead of January 31st’s pivotal Florida primary, Mr. Gingrich has come out swinging, claiming his campaign is “going to make the Establishment very uncomfortable.” The Establishment is indeed uncomfortable, and funds will surely be flowing into Mr. Romney’s PACs to return him to the coveted land of the frontrunner.

Perhaps the most important thing to take away from South Carolina’s primary is the now sudden lack of certainty. In a race long dominated by Mr. Romney, the former Bain CEO now finds himself without firm footing; no longer may he be able to rest upon the assumption that his rivals will split opposing votes into nonthreatening bunches. Without a doubt, after electing three different winners in three primaries thus far, it is obvious that Republicans are in no hurry whatsoever to confirm a nominee.

Of course, that is not to say that Mr. Romney should not still be considered the overall favorite, for he certainly is. He is on the ballot in every state, a luxury whose comforts Mr. Gingrich doesn’t enjoy, and even while he was falling behind in South Carolina on Saturday, Mr. Romney was locking up tens of thousands of early votes for the Florida primary. As the calendar turns to February in a couple weeks’ time, things look even better for the former Massachusetts governor–Nevada and Michigan will weigh in with their own primaries, states which happen to be the only ones Mr. Romney won back in his failed 2008 presidential bid.

However, all of these are theoretical and hypothetical advantages and will matter little if a repeat of South Carolina occurs, an idea not at all far-fetched. Mr. Romney could well trounce the competition in Florida and virtually seal the nomination by February, but, in the meantime, at least Mr. Gingrich, with his aggressive attitude and anti-Washington stance, has finally made things interesting.

2020: Gingrich’s Space Odyssey by Ashley Hansberry

Romney Takes Nevada by Ross Ballantyne

Farewell Rick Perry, We Hardly Knew Ye Were Presidential by Ian Moskowitz

Yesterday afternoon, the Federal Buerau of Information made a press release stating that the leaders of Megaupload (and by extension, Megavideo) were charged with copyright infringement. In one of the largest copyright cases in US history, the folks behind the site are “charged with engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering, and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.”

One of the Anonymous logos. | image by flickr user OperationPaperStorm.

If that sounds serious, it is. The US government has already made arrests, issued warrants and seized millions. Over the years, the site has been a destination for illegal streaming of television and movies. They offered the content for free, while reaping a supposed profit of over $175 million from ad revenue. Meanwhile, according to the release, the holders of the copyright apparently lost an amount “well in excess of $500 million.”

While some fans simply mourned the death of their illegal stream site of choice, others took action.

Enter Anonymous. This group of “hactivists,” (or hacker-activists) famous for concentrated distributed denial of service (or, DDoS) attacks on banks and government entities or random gaming websites, were predictably unhappy with the take down. They staged their legendary attacks on various websites. For much of the day, the Department of Justice, US Copyright Office, MPAA RIAA, and Universal Music Group all saw their servers down. The attack on the government and various entertainment empires represents the largest such attack ever, and got personal when MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd’s personal information was posted.

But exactly what the long-term effect of the hack will be remains in question. Right now, it seems only to have made the US Government and the entertainment industry angry. And while Wednesday’s online SOPA blackouts made progress in generating popular support and awareness for the anti-SOPA movement, it’s unclear whether the DDoS attacks will have a practical effect.

The majority of the sites in question came back to life within a few hours, and the Megaupload masterminds are either still sought out or in custody. If Anonymous’ goal was to create lasting change, then they might be lagging so far. But if their goal was to piss off the people who brought down Megavideo–the entertainment giants and the US government–then they did so with artful orchestration.

New developments in the war between the internet and the suits can be followed via the hashtag #opMegaUpload.

After a disappointing fifth place finish in the Iowa Caucus and a last place finish in New Hampshire, many pundits were surprised to see Perry competing in South Carolina at all. According to a CNN/Time poll conducted Wednesday, just 6% of likely South Carolina Republican primary voters claimed that they would be backing Perry.

Many saw Perry as the conservative challenger to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney after Perry surged in the polls when he announced his candidacy in late August. A series of gaffes along the campaign trail and in debates sent campaign staffers running for the hills and the Texas Governor plummeting in the polls.

Most recently, the Texas Governor sparked a mild international crisis when he referred to U.S. ally and the democratically elected government of Turkey as Islamic terrorists in this week’s South Carolina debate .

In what will surely be shown in political campaign classes for decades to come, Perry’s most cringe-inducing gaffe came in a debate in early November when the candidate claimed that as President he would eliminate three departments of government then failed to recall which ones. While not only painful to watch, the gaffe gave some voters the impression that Rick Perry was disingenuous about his plan to reduce the size of government. Americans tend to forgive mistakes, but not insincerity.

Governor Rick Perry | Photo Courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Flickr Creative Commons

Still, the media missed the real story. The issue was not that Gov. Perry forgot which department of the Federal Government he would abolish but that he wanted to abolish them at all, without any substantial plan to replace their vital services with other agencies or through a transition to a privatized system.

In a last-ditch effort to revive his campaign, Perry began campaigning on a family values platform to sway social conservatives in Iowa. The Perry campaign released a TV spot in early December claiming that President Obama was waging a war on religion with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and falsely implied that the President was leading the charge against prayer in public schools. Liberals were horrified, conservatives smelled desperation and so the Perry campaign never regained any ground.

With Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and now Rick Perry out of the race, Rick Santorum remains the only candidate left in the primary that is endorsed by God in the four way contest with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Congressman Ron Paul.  The CNN/Time Poll shows all-but-official GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s lead shrinking with 33% of likely South Carolina Primary voters backing him and 23% backing Gingrich, who is up 9 points from two weeks ago. Even in the unlikely event that all of Perry’s 6% of voters swing to Gingrich, Perry’s endorsement of the former House Speaker will not likely be enough to stop Romney’s momentum. Still, Rick Perry’s endorsement shows that the Republican party’s hard-right is still dissatisfied with Romney as the GOP nominee.

At the press conference Thursday morning, Gov. Perry stated that he plans to head back to Texas where he will presumably spend some time blowing off steam at the hunting camp formerly known as “N-Wordhead.“ Perry said he was not done fighting for conservatism, adding that he’s only “just begun.” I bet the late night talk show hosts hope he never stops.

 Timeline from the Star-Telegram of Rick Perry’s Failed Presidential Bid.

Rick Perry Facing Immigration Backlash in Iowa by Ross Ballantyne

Rick Perry’s Heart Has Republicans Questioning His Head by Ross Ballantyne

Perry’s Gaffe Steals the Spotlight by Ross Ballantyne

By Evan Caughey

Exchanging Pleasantries by Evan Caughey

Megaupload In Peace by Evan Caughey

Skeezics- DOW(n) by Evan Caughey

Wikipedia blacked out its homepage as means of protesting SOPA and PIPA. | Screenshot by Lauren Michael

On January 18, Wikipedia frequenters wailed with grief as the popular online encyclopedia’s English-language site engaged in a 24-hour shutdown. Called a “blackout,” the website’s actions protested the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, first initiated last October) and its Senate equivalent, the Protect IP Act (PIPA, introduced last May). Thousands of other websites also participated, including Reddit, Craigslist and ICanHazCheezburger.com.

Though Google did not shut down like Wikipedia, it put a black censor bar over its logo. When clicked, the bar directed users to a petition asking Congress to stop considering the bills. Wikipedia provided a similar service, allowing users to enter in their zip codes and acquire contact information for their senators and representatives.

On their blacked-out homepage, Wikipedia offered its reasons for fighting so adamantly against SOPA. “SOPA and PIPA would put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites,” it said. “Small sites won’t have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn’t being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won’t show up in major search engines. SOPA and PIPA would build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.”

Many agree. People who oppose the bills, especially free speech advocates and those whose careers depend on the Internet, fear that SOPA gives too much power to the Department of Justice and copyright holders. SOPA opponents cite loopholes that could potentially allow corporations and the government to take down domestic websites without a trial, censor material that doesn’t violate copyright laws and punish entire websites if a user posts pirated content.

Google put a censor-bar over its logo, which linked to a petition. | Screenshot by Lauren Michael

Merely hours into the blackouts, several congressional and corporate supporters of SOPA and PIPA withdrew their favor. Said former PIPA cosponsor and Florida senator Marco Rubio on his Facebook page, “Earlier this year, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and without controversy. Since then, we’ve heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government’s power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.”

Meanwhile, the bills still retain support from the music and film industries, since illegal downloading can be detrimental to their profits. Congressional supporters of SOPA and PIPA say the bills are an important step towards preventing American products from being pirated overseas. MPAA president Chris Dodd released a statement on Tuesday condemning the blackouts.

Further discussion on SOPA in the House of Representative is tentatively scheduled for sometime in February. PIPA is set to face a vote sometime in February.

A full-text version of the bill is available here. 

SOPA and the Battle Between Piracy and Privacy by Ian Moskowitz

OpEd: Jamil Sbitan on SOPA and PIPA by The Quad

Major Human Rights Victory: California’s Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional by Ross Ballantyne