2012 is the year that the internet became a political force. What took so long? Well, the majority of us have surely been distracted by LOLcats and pr0nz.

Full disclosure: I work on issues at the intersection of technology, copyright and policy. In recent months, I’ve been able to observe firsthand the impact of internet-powered social movements. To wit: the unprecedented outrage around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT-IP (PIPA) stopped either bill from becoming law — something many in Congress assumed was a fait accompli.

Then there’s the immense pressure brought on Susan G. Komen for the Cure after the organization pulled funding to Planned Parenthood. The swift disapproval — again, largely web-driven — was so intense that Komen’s VP is now stepping down.

The “bitroots” blowback is hardly limited to the US. Public demonstrations are currently taking place in the EU over ACTA, an international intellectual property agreement that some think goes too far. Protests have spilled into the streets, with more than 20,000 people participating in Poland alone. But the real engine of dissent is online.

Powerful as this new form of protest is, it’s hardly perfect. Oversimplifications are common, which is to be expected when complex policy matters are condensed into viral action items. Still, there is one clear takeaway: the world’s netizens will no longer lay back while decisions are made that impact their lives, online and otherwise.

From my experience, I can say that the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement was broad and remarkably diffuse. Internet users are now stakeholders, and they have countless ways to share information and amplify their voices. And, although it would be incorrect to call them a monolithic group, they are perfectly capable of representing their own self-interests when push comes to shove.

It’s unfair to characterize the SOPA/PIPA skirmish as one between Hollywood and Silicon Valley (read: Google). While some major tech companies were certainly involved, most of the push happened at the netroots level. I’d say it went down something like this:

1. Tumblr saw the liabilities they’d face under this overly-broad legislation and independently decided to black out their pages in protest. This woke a lot of folks up right quick.
2. The Reddit community started paying attention, and more people became very well-informed on the issue (and got pretty pissed off).
3. Wikipedia joined the loosely-organized “blackout,” and in the process inspired millions more people to call their representatives. (I think Google put a widget next to the search field on their home page, but they didn’t go dark.)
4. Some of us goobers in Washington — completely outnumbered by the well-heeled entertainment industry goons — pointed out that a lot of constituents (including tens of thousands of copyright holders) weren’t comfortable with this legislation as drafted.

The true action came from internet users who found themselves in a position to push back against a fairly draconian set of proposals. The technology itself amplified their message to the extent that a bill that had already passed out of full committee in the US Senate was put on ice, and the House companion never even made it past markup. You can believe me when I tell you that this is a new dynamic in Washington. I’m not sure anyone has fully wrapped their heads around what it means.

So, are these movements merely lighting in a bottle, or the foundations of a new and lasting form of advocacy? Can these spontaneous yet incredibly potent movements be transitioned from something reactive to something proactive? We may have to wait a while to find out. For now, if I was the MPAA or the RIAA, I might consider internalizing the lesson, instead of blithely dismissing the movement as ill-informed, or worse, driven by tech companies.

What do you bet they won’t?

Which brings me to Iran…

Now, before you go thinking that I’m some kind of hippie peacenik, know that I am quite fond of blood and guts and gore and veins in my teeth. Even as someone whose foreign policy views verge on realpolitik, I recognize the threat of a nuclear Iran to Middle East stability. I’m also aware that our options are limited.

But this isn’t about geopolitical choice so much as the language that shapes how we perceive choice itself.

Exhibit A: US Fears Israel Will Hit Iran Without Warning

“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Israeli Defense minister Ehud Barak said. (The Post notes he switched from Hebrew to English when saying the words, “Later is too late.”) Leon Panetta, meanwhile, declined to refute a report that he was worried about an Israeli attack.

It’s probably unsurprising that Israel is trying to convey a sense of inevitability here. Still, one wonders if Israel has the capability of neutralizing the below-ground, concrete-reinforced facilities that comprise Iran’s nuclear workshops. In which case, the drum beating may be a nudge to the US to hurry up and complete work on its Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which may or may not be up to the task. (Either way, the MOP can be seen as a major advancement in military hardware as phallic symbol.)

Exhibit B: U.S. Intel: Iran Willing To Attack on American Soil

Who has seen the wind?

Neither I nor you.

But when the leaves hang trembling,

The wind is passing through.

Who has seen the wind?

Neither you nor I.

But when the trees bow down their heads,

The wind is passing by.

~ Joanna Kantharia

Poppycock.

The framers were Masonic Deists. This belief system seeks knowledge of God through the application of reason and meditation on natural laws. God here is the Great Architect, not a “life coach in the sky.”

So the next time you hear someone like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum prattling on about America being a Christian nation, keep the following quotes in mind.

John Adams
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

“The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Thomas Jefferson
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man… rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus.”

“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.”

“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

Thomas Paine
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of… each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all… of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.”

“The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.”

James Madison
“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.”

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Madison was also against tax exemption for churches.

Another fun fact: a mere 7 percent of dwellers in the original 13 colonies belonged to a church at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Separation of Church and State
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And here’s one last quote, but not from a framer:

“Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” —Adolph Hitler

Dear Big Content,

I love your movies. Especially the ones that are all s’plodey and where stuff flies off the screen. And I love your records, the Led Zeppelin catalog in particular. I’ve always been a good customer: I don’t infringe, and I’m loyal to a fault. But I do have a few questions for you.

First, why do you treat me and my friends like punks? We buy your stuff. But you make it really hard to do it in a way that fits with our digital reality. I’m looking at you, movie and TV peeps. You really want me to accept the violation of a decades-old consumer compact whereby we could rent a movie on the same day it was available to purchase? Do you really think that making me wait TWO MONTHS to be able to rent Mars Needs Moms on DVD (I’m not even talking streaming) is going to drive me into Best Buy to plunk down for the petrochemical disc? Do you secretly like piracy? Because that’s exactly what you’re encouraging.

And music guys: how come you create the conditions where there are only three companies that can afford to offer your wares? Do you know how much fucking money you’re leaving on the table by clinging to your prehistoric licensing terms? Once upon a time there was this disruptive, infringing technology called radio. Completely freaked song publishers out. They wanted to force every broadcaster to pay an individually negotiated amount for every spin. In hindsight, that seems not only inefficient but imbecilic. Maybe the government needs to step up and prod you goofballs towards more internet-friendly terms. I bet you could even keep your car service! Now, I know that you fought the phonograph. And the CD. And the MP3. But you don’t have much fight left in you. So the time to get your shit together is probably now. And yes, me and my friends will be paying VERY close attention to make sure that the artist splits are fair. Because frankly, I’m not all that convinced that you’re providing much value anymore. Consider this your opportunity to be cut into the future while you still have a chance.

And would you please get a basic grasp of how the internet works? Why are you so keen to demonize an entire class of technology? Let’s take search for example. I can look up a recipe to make hash brownies. Or I can look up a recipe to make regular brownies. Now, we all know that those criminal scumbags offering the former must be dealt with in the severest possible manner. But what you’re proposing is like blowing up the entire library because you don’t like that the card catalog system tells you which shelf has the book on hash brownies. Are you really this boneheaded? I get that you’re jealous about Google making bajillions from search. But is that a reason to compromise a mechanism upon which millions of global internet users rely? I guess it’s true what they say: the entertainment industry isn’t all about the money — it’s about ALL the money.

Also, could you please stop pretending that the SOPA/PIPA debacle was about Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood? (Or, as you prefer to characterize it, homespun creators vs. Google.) Literally millions of internet users — many of them copyright holders — had issues with your overreaching bills. They didn’t jump into a controversial intellectual property debate because they wanted to. They felt compelled to, due to the fact that big-money industry lobbying groups like yours were attempting to speak for them.

So kindly cut it out.

I want to be your friend. But you don’t make it easy. The arrogance, belligerence and outright bullying that you employ is hardly endearing yourselves to an entire new generation of creators and rightsholders. If I wasn’t so goddamn genteel, I’d go ahead and list some of that stuff. But unlike you, I have a modicum of class.

Consider this a friendly bit of advice from someone who cares. The road you’re going down leads to disaster and heartbreak. But it’s not too late to turn around.

Your pal,
Casey

You can’t say the ruling Mullahs don’t have a sense of humor. In response to US demands that Iran return a RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone that went down over the eastern part of Iran, the country’s leaders have agreed to send back a toy version worth about four bucks.

The drone’s capture back in December 2011 sparked some debate in intelligence and military circles about whether to launch an operation to destroy it, or simply leave it in Iranian hands. The former was decided to be too risky, so the US ultimately chose to send a formal letter requesting the drone be returned. The same week they also sent letters requesting Justin Bieber stop being so damned adorable and for Tim Tebow to convert to Satanism.

Meanwhile, Iranian officials claim to have finished extracting data from the unmanned aircraft. They also plan to file a lawsuit against the United States in US courts for alleged invasion of their airspace. Good luck finding a friendly bench, fellas.

All of this makes one wonder why, with such sophisticated technology, there isn’t some kind of destruct mechanism on these drones. I suppose the lack of such a failsafe is why “military intelligence” remains an oxymoron.

Ah well, at least the President will have an interesting new paperweight for his desk in the Oval Office.

Regular readers will be familiar with Canadian futurist and ethicist George Dvorsky, whose excellent site Sentient Developments explores topics related to science, technology, human performance and the moral imperative to expand rights of personhood to certain non-human animals. We’ve linked to SD dozens of times over the years, and George was even good enough to let us do some guest blogging back before we got too busy to populate our own damn site.

George is also the Chairman of the Board at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies as well as the program director for the Rights of Non-Human Persons Program.

We’re happy to count George among our personal friends, which makes it that much more fun to tell you about his podcast, which we listened to all the time back in the day. Besides the cool discussions, we were always really impressed with George’s choices in music for the program. (Dude’s got some big ears!) Now the podcast is back in full force, and we encourage you to check it out. The official feed is here; you can get it through iTunes right here.

Another pal, Michael Nordstrom (aka Nerdstrom, aka Mondhexe, aka fifty other things), has taken his obsession with über-legendary kaiju character Garamon to an absurd and fairly fucking awesome new level. Already the proprietor of fan site Garamania, Nerdstrom is now attempting to become Garamon.

We’re not kidding.

Check out the Kickstarter page for The Becoming of Garamike project, through which Nerdstrom is attempting to raise a mere $2,200 to get a couple of pro sculptors and makeup artists to help him, erm, make the transition. Here’s the official description:

Yes, at last… no longer content to merely document and celebrate the world’s favorite clunky, crusty, fish-lipped, oil-belching, high-rise-wrecking meteorite monster… I, Michael Nordstrom (Nerdstrom), Proprietor of Garamania, being of warped mind and highly costume-tolerant body… have decided to becomeGaramon (actually, Garamike).  Working with ultra-talented professional sculptors/make-up artists Michael Ridge and Michael Turner and a whole lot of alginate, foam and silicone, I will be alchemically transformed into a being as outwardly Garamonic as I could ever hope to be. Our design honors the original suit while adding some cutting-edge components (including the face, which will be a form-fitting silicone masterwork of Gara-expressiveness).  Our goal is to complete work on at least the initial phase (head, hands, feet and tail) by the opening night of GARAMANIACAL, the all-Garamon, all-Pygmon art show I am curating for FOE Gallery in Northampton, Massachusetts (the current image for this project is a section of an incredible painting by Jason Edmiston, which will be on display at the show).  On opening weekend, my hope is to be a Gara-transformed barker and ballyhoo-er, stomping the snowy streets of Northampton to connect the public at large to the show, turning them on to works of Garamonstrous art that they didn’t even realize they needed in their lives (but they do… they definitely do).  The funds you contribute will help us meet this goal, as well as further us on the road to completing a full suit in the foreseeable future.

Backers should know that this will not be a short-term transformation.  Once granted the powers of Gara-becoming by Ridge and Turner, I will be able to become my Gara-self at any time, night or day… I plan to fully inhabit this suit, mustering all of my performance experience to truly bring it to life as a Gara-character unto itself.  Just as Jandek was Ready For The House, I am Ready For The Suit. I have a slew of mindbenderly projects in mind for my Gara-persona… YOU, the audience, will:

THRILL! at the sight of Garamike hosting a delightfully art-damaged musical variety show, to be produced for local cable access (also to be broadcast online);

GASP! while watching Garamike deliver gripping, novel musical performance art happenings to delight and inspire legions of like-monstrous folk (again, to be captured on video for cable and online broadcast);

GUFFAW! at frequent photoplay amusements featuring Garamike, to be posted to Garamania… and much, much more!

This may sound strange, but is it really any weirder than, say, Dolly Parton’s face in that thar new singin’ contest movie?

Best to both of our buds in their quest for excellence!

The stock market has sure been twitchy lately, hasn’t it? But that’s not all. What with the economic turmoil in Europe, the perennial threat of our own government being shut down by further gridlock in Congress, relentlessly radical statements and completely insane “plans” coming from various presidential candidates, it’s easy to see why people are just scared shitless. I know I am.

But enough of that negativity. If we’re going to move forward and heal, we need a potential future to focus on, something besides imagining ourselves running screaming into the night. Let’s see what the art of Tarot has to offer in the way of guidance. Here is my latest reading.

1 Present: The Moon
Things may not be as they seem, and we all know they probably aren’t. But that doesn’t stop us from howling at the moon about it.

2 Crossing: 6 of Swords
A long journey — not a fun one. We’re stuck on this trip until it’s over, friend.

3 Goal: 5 of Swords
We want to totally kick the ass of this recession. Hopefully it works like that. Apparently, that is how we’re approaching this problem.

4 Distant past: King of Wands
Oh remember when we all thought we could just elect the right guy president and we’d have a perfect future? Wealth, productivity, and an honest, hardworking government working for our best interest? This card does.

5 Recent past: 7 of Cups
Dude, we’ve been living a fantasy. We thought we’d get all our wildest dreams just like *poosh* but it didn’t happen, did it?

6 Future influence: 6 of Cups
Yeah, we’re pretty much stuck on our childhood fantasies about the American dream — and that’s what’s going to have the biggest influence on this year’s election.

7 Questioner: 4 of Pentacles
We want our damn money. If we already have any, we’re holding on to it for dear life. If we’re looking for money, watch out, because we think we’re pretty hardcore.

8 Environment: 7 of Wands
People are freaking out, you guys. People are ready to kick some ass and start some shit. It’s like that.

9 Hopes: The Star
What do we want? Apparently we want, more than anything, hope. We want an answer to our prayers. A light to shine in the darkness. And that’s a big deal.

10 Outcome: The Tower
What’s to come of all this? Well it’s not going to be sunshine and roses right away. Shit’s going to get real. But the only possible solution is a do-over — destroy what we know, and create anew. Not at all a small thing.

There’s been tremendous buzz around director David Fincher‘s interpretation of the novel Girl With the Dragon Tattoo — the beach book to end all beach books. By now, anyone with a pulse knows that Fincher’s film follows a Swedish movie that received high marks from critics and audiences. Having just seen the American translation, I can say outright that it tops the Swedish version, and also manages to improve on Stieg Larsson‘s original novel in a number of ways.

Larsson didn’t exactly do filmmakers any favors with his clunky and overly-descriptive yarn. In between lengthy inventories of what characters had for lunch (usually any combination of Aquavit, small sandwiches, coffee and something called Billy’s Pan Pizza), the author delivered unflinching observations of murder and degradation, particularly those acts committed against females. His real contribution to literature, however, is the introduction of an indelible character named Lisbeth Salander — a petite and ferocious young woman who has been chewed up and spat out by institutions ostensibly there to protect people like her. The novel strongly suggests that Salander may be a high-functioning autistic, which may make her the first officially Aspergian detective hero (though I’ve long suspected Sherlock Holmes). In Lisbeth, Larsson created a character both irresistible and off-putting, characteristics that would be difficult for any actress to evoke — particularly when said heroine doesn’t do a lot of talking.

Noomi Rapace played Salander in the Swedish film, and did a fine job of it. Still, Rapace’s portrayal made Lisbeth’s behavior seem like a choice, rather than the product of systematic mistreatment, an iron will or neurological wiring. She was also likely a bit too old for the part. Numerous characters in the novel are continuously surprised — often at their own peril — to discover that this antisocial creature who is often mistaken for a young teen is such a dynamo. Rooney Mara, on the other hand, captures every nuance of this hard-to-pin-down character — from autistic inwardness to intellectual curiosity to explosive rage.

It helps that Mara is physically closer to the Salander in the book, painfully thin and angular, with features that nevertheless could be seen as attractive if not for the deliberate attempts to obscure them with body mortification and a yanked-up hoodie. Credit must be given to whoever designed her wardrobe, which improves greatly on the dated techno-nihilist look of the Swedish film. Fincher and Co. must have spent some time observing pissy crustpunks and misanthropic hackers in real life. (Insert OWS joke here.)

What Mara really brings to the role is ice-cold detachment and a palpable lust for information, especially that transmitted through electronic devices. With precision comportment and a credible Swedish accent, Mara embodies Lisbeth Salander on a cellular level. Whether she’s piecing together clues at superhuman speed, enacting rough justice upon an abuser, or engaging in rapacious lovemaking, this Lisbeth is a force to be reckoned with. I’m still somewhat in awe that a relatively unknown actress could pull off such an arresting performance.

Fincher’s filmmaking style is perfect for at least the first tale in Larsson’s trilogy. The mood is chilly and pensive throughout, and mostly manages to avoid the book’s narrative stumbling blocks. I’m not sure what kind of impression will be generated in viewers who haven’t read the novel, but I’m guessing there’s enough intrigue to entertain. Fincher manages to thread the book’s numerous characters and subplots together in a way that Larsson would have done well to take note of, were he alive to see it.

Daniel Craig is also fantastic. His Mikael Blomkvist is a huge improvement over the Swedish actor, and definitely more likable than the character in the book. (It’s pretty clear that Larsson was writing the fantasy version of himself — a heroic whistleblowing reporter who is, despite advancing middle age, irresistible to women of every conceivable variety.) But it’s not Daniel Craig’s movie. It’s Rooney Mara’s, and she positively owns it. It’s also nice to see Robin Wright as Erica Berger, Blomkvist’s partner at Millennium Magazine (and in the sack). She, too, is leaps and bounds above her predecessor.

If you even marginally liked the book, I expect you’ll really dig the movie. If you’re one of those people who rolls their eyes at American “remakes” of foreign films, get over it. Fincher’s Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is simply superior.

In fact, I look forward to seeing it again this weekend.

One of the reasons I haven’t been posting much is that I’m spending every spare bit of my energy trying to make sure a pair of ill-conceived pieces of legislation do not become law (at least in their current form). The bills in question are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives, and the PROTECT-IP Act in the Senate. (Of the two, SOPA is the worst.)

Now, both of these proposals could be considered well-intentioned, but their language is dangerously overbroad and could have serious implications on free speech, innovation and cybersecurity. I won’t bore you with the details, because I have a broader point to make. (Here’s my favorite analysis of the bills’ scope and provisions, if you’re curious.)

What pisses me off most is that there’s likely another way to achieve the bills’ goals — namely, combating foreign sites that traffic in unauthorized American intellectual property. Yet these alternatives are largely being ignored by a Congress eager to simply hand the internet over to Hollywood. And can say with certainty that these folks are always happy to restrict speech and quash competition in the name of preserving an antiquated business model.

In an agonizing twist of irony, Congress’ mad rush to codify online censorship is in direct opposition to the American government’s efforts to promote informational freedom abroad. This article in Slate expertly explains the discontinuity.

There is a recurring theme in terms of how recent legislation is being crafted. We’re seeing deliberate loopholes that don’t explicitly detail how your liberties will be restricted, but nonetheless establish the conditions under which such outcomes are not only possible, but likely.

Take for example, the highly controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Steve Benen has an excellent analysis about whether this law would allow for the permanent detention of American citizens.

Not to compare apples to oranges, but I was struck by the following disclaimer in NDAA:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Oh, good! Then there’s NO WAY a court could interpret this statute as giving the president the option of indefinitely detaining without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism!

This deliberate-loophole doublespeak reminds me of the opening renunciation in SOPA (emphasis mine):

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

That must mean that there can be absolutely NO WAY that any portion of a site that is “avoiding confirming a high probability” of infringement could be blocked by the US attorney general or have its commercial transactions halted on the mere accusation of infringement (the latter without any due process, and and with an impossibly narrow window for recourse). I feel so much better now!

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

To go any further would require a level of legal analysis that would likely put you in a coma. So I’ll close with this hopefully straightforward statement: American civil liberties are currently under threat, and our elected officials have abdicated their fundamental responsibility to safeguard these basic freedoms.

And that should scare the shit out of you.