I've been meaning for a long time to compile a list of English-language blogs about Turkey that I read regularly. This is an important list, because this is where you'll see a much more free exchange of ideas--especially in the comments--than you will in either of the two major English-language newspapers here, and certainly a deeper and more realistic treatment of Turkey than you'll get in the US mainstream media.

First, a word about those two English-language papers. Hürriyet Daily News is the country's oldest English-language daily. It's owned by the Doğan media group, which the AKP nearly selectively-taxed out of existence. I've written about this here, although that article is now out-of-date; the landscape of the region has changed a lot in a year, and so has the domestic landscape in Turkey. (This fact seems to elude many commenters in the West who are perfectly happy to draw upon events that took place at the beginning of the AKP's time in power--or even well before that--to form an assessment of the nature of the party and the Turkish political scene today. That's a huge mistake.)

HDN is a useful paper: It's relatively cautious in its reporting; some of its columnists are excellent, and I don't usually see outright, obvious lies. But it won't touch the real third-rail issues in Turkey. All of the major media bosses have been too cowed, or are too deeply in the tradition of going-along-to-get-along, to do the kind of work we would think of as "rigorous investigative journalism." They don't, in other words, act as an effective Fourth Estate--especially since there aren't exactly three other estates here. There's at most two: the state and the deep state.

There are plenty of hysterical (Turkish-language) opposition newspapers, but none are capable of earning my trust by regularly providing reliable news, as opposed to "opposition hysteria that's sometimes true and just as often not, so take it with a grain of salt." (Bianet, in English, is worth reading in this vein, and they're getting better these days.) Frederike Geerdink, another freelancer here, has written a good piece about journalistic standards in Turkey in general here. I've written about them here, too--but that piece is also very out of date.

Then there's Today's Zaman. Zaman is part of the Gülen media empire, and Today's Zaman should basically be read as the daily newsletter of the Gülen movement, although there is definitely real news to be found in there, sometimes even breaking news--the problem is that you don't know which part is real, and often, you know for sure that it isn't. You can tell by the tone, but it takes some getting into the spirit of things. If you read it daily, you'll begin to get it. 

Contrary to reputation, not everyone at Today's Zaman is a microchip-implanted cult-follower, and there are some hardworking journalists there who do their best to report the news accurately. But the jokes about the paper being Turkey's Pravda are not for nothing. It's highly disturbing that Anne-Marie Slaughter didn't know this--but I have to say, I haven't noticed a deep commitment to fact-checking when it comes to Turkey from Michael Rubin, either. 

Right. With that said, let me point you to some English-language blogs that I read regularly. I don't necessarily endorse them, but I think you'll get a much deeper sense of the important debates going on in Turkey from reading them than you will from, say, Rick Perry, or from the host of American commentators who tried to defend his comments. 

Jenny White's Kamil Pasha blog serves as a hub for some excellent debate, in the comments, about Turkey. I check it daily, and some of the commenters in particular are excellent, though I don't want to call attention to them by name. I include in the category some of the commenters who have been critical of things I've written. Sometimes they have a point.

Jeffrey Gibbs writes Istanbul and Beyond, which is beautifully written and observed. In his words, "I am a swamp cracker from rural Florida living in Istanbul where I'm trying to write a book comparing the South with Turkey. I also do stuff on the side. And sometimes things." Most importantly, his father-in-law has been swept up in one of the latest rounds of arrests, and his descriptions of this are an important record of what so many people here are going through. 

Istanbul Notes, written by my friend Aengus Collins, has gone on hiatus. A real shame, because he was doing the kind of rigorous, unemotional analysis that's so deeply needed here. I wish he'd come back. The past entries are invaluable. Yigal Schliefer writes Istanbul Calling, which I also read regularly, and I trust his commitment to accuracy, although I sometimes find his reporting a bit timid.

I wish James in Turkey would post more often, because when he does, as he says, "it has some credibility." He knows the country very well. I don't always agree with Istan6ul Altı, but it's very much worth reading, though it seems to be fracturing into several independent blogs now. Erkan's Field Diary should receive special mention. As he puts it, it "evolved from a dissertation project on Turkish journalism and the European Union. In addition to the original topic, the blog monitors socio-cultural happenings and cybercultural emergences in Turkey." And it's more interesting than that sounds. 

Changing Turkey in a Changing World is a reasonably good guide to the state of Engllish-language academic research on Turkey, and the extensive blogroll an even better guide. 

Alexander Christie-Miller's Turkey Etc.--highly recommended. He often posts the parts of his reporting that were cut out by editors who didn't have the space to run the whole article he submitted. Often those were the best parts. Jim Meyer's Borderlands is quite interesting--scroll down to Borderlands Classix on the bottom-right. Istanbul Musing is curated by Hans A.H.C. Dewitt, who knows Turkey as well as any expat is apt to. (It could use better organization, Hans.)  

Tarlabaşı Istanbul does the kind of reporting I deeply admire: He focuses on one neighborhood in Istanbul. He's really trying to understand and trying to observe. This is the level at which reporting should be done--one story, over time, deepening it--but so rarely is. 

Ragan Updegraff's Turkish Politics in Action is really worthwhile. (His latest post, Division in the Ranks, is important--everyone here knows it, but I don't sense that anyone in the US is grasping it.)

Turkey Emergency is written anonymously, as many blogs here are. I suspect he, or she, is often very right about things. I understand why many people feel they have to blog anonymously. But I'm also suspicious of anyone who does: I like my agendas out in the open. 

Speaking of anonymous blogs, CASILIPS is a fairly level-headed guide to the Gülen movements activities in the US. I suspect it's either written by a Turk who is hostile to Gülen or by a member of the kind of organized enemy he has never even imagined facing---the American teachers' unions. I have to say, if it's the latter, he has no idea what he's up against. Taking on the Turkish military is child's play by comparison. For balance, here's a blog defending the schools. Judge for yourself. 

Emre Kızılkaya is the chief editor of the foreign news service at Hürriyet. I like his blog much more than his newspaper. I don't always agree with him, but I sometimes do, quite strongly. 

I just discovered Letter from Turkey, written by an American who's been here since forever, and loved it. He's living in the same Turkey I live in. For those without patience, his Twitter feed manages to sum up Turkey remarkably well.  

Last and definitely not least is Carpetblogger--one of the funniest blogs on the entire Internet, at least if you live here.

There are so many more--and this is just the English-language blogosphere, mind you--but this is probably a good start. 

Oh! And two more sites that are very worth your while if you want to know more about Turkey: Turkish Policy Quarterly and Silk Road Studies. 

For those of you who aren't that interested but just want to know whether Turkey's a reliable NATO partner, the answer is: They'll work with the US when it's in their interests, and in many cases, it is. That's how it's always been. 

Of the top three or four candidates for the Republican nomination, one is a thrice-married recently converted Catholic; one is drug-legalizing libertarian; and one is a devout Mormon (do I really need to find a link for him?).  Only one candidate, Rick Santorum, really fits the model of a traditional Republican social conservative.  

Choice is good, in politics as in everything else, like pizza.  But the prevailing noise from the left -- remember Theocracy Watch and the whole hysterical nonsense about Dominionsism, whatever that is? -- was terrified about the rise of the Republican theocrat.  Those on the right were supposed to be religious nuts who had only one question:  WWJVF?  Who Would Jesus Vote For?

Again: since autumn, three of the top four candidates for the Republican nomination -- especially in states with strong traditions of Christian, Evangelical, and conservative political activism -- were a libertarian drug-legalizer, a twice-divorced Catholic convert, and a Mormon, which suggests that the Republican voter is pretty sophisticated, and asks himself a lot of questions besides WWJVF.

This is news to the NYTimes:

Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said the embrace of Mr. Romney and the fact that a black Republican, Tim Scott of Charleston, was elected to Congress from South Carolina in 2010 indicates that a new pragmatism may be taking hold.

“It suggests that the minds of South Carolinians are not as shackled by religion and race as they used to be and that we can more fully debate policy,” he said.

Ben Few, 66, an evangelical who owns a pharmacy in Spartanburg, said he supported Mr. Obama in the last election but was now backing Mr. Romney.

They can only bring themselves to talk about South Carolina.  But the real news is -- to them -- that the Republican primary voter seems to be a lot more open, a lot less single-issue, and a good deal more politically thoughtful than they were given credit for, by folks like New York Times reporters.

I wonder if that rattles them?  Just a little?

Carlos M. N. Eire, a professor of history at Yale, is a Cuban exile.  He has written an excellent piece about how the U.S. media and Hollywood portray Cuba.  

He describes one incident in which Castro fell ill and appeared to be near death.  In response, several Cuban exiles openly rejoiced.  Shortly after, a New York Times editor called him for a quote:

      “I can't help but wonder if this rejoicing is appropriate,” says the Times editor about the street revelers in Little Havana, “since many of them were likely allowed to leave Cuba in the early 60's with Castro's blessing.” Then, as if this were not vexing enough, she asks you to lay all your cards on the table and state your position on this question explicitly, to see whether or not your opinion is worth considering. And when you comply and offer to sum up the ailing tyrant as the consummate Machiavellian prince, you are curtly dismissed…

     “We're afraid that this approach is not quite right,” said the editor. 
     Imagine that.

      God knows what they were searching for at the New York Times, or what they expected of me. All I know is that the Times made me feel as if I were back in Cuba, dealing with its state-run propaganda rag, Granma. Or like a “negro” in the old South, dealing with segregationists who couldn’t understand why colored folk were so ungrateful about being rescued from Africa.

Join us over on the Member Feed at 5pm PT/8pm ET for Ricochet's live chat coverage of the final debate in South Carolina before Saturday's primary.  The momentum is with Newt Gingrich who has captured the lead in South Carolina after his stellar performance in Tuesday's debate. However, with the outbreak of the ex-wife drama, the pressure is on the former Speaker to top his last performance in order to cinch the positive headlines going into the weekend.

Find CNN's live stream of the debate here.

If I am not, strictly speaking, a libertarian, like James Delingpole, I have a libertarian streak -- which helps explain why I, too, dislike SOPA and PIPA. I would, in fact, be inclined to go even further than the opponents of these two bills and challenge the copyright law that provides their underpinning.

Do not get me wrong. I think that there should be a copyright law. One sign that the Founding Fathers intended that the United States be a commercial republic is the fact that the Framers embedded within the country's constitution a clause stipulating that Congress provide for copyrights and patents -- which is to say, that they endorsed the notion of intellectual property.

But here is the kicker. They did so for only a limited term. Their purpose was to encourage innovation, to reward inventors and authors, and ease their inventions and writings into the public domain with reasonable alacrity -- so that they could be of benefit to all.

The aim of the entertainment industry is to maximize profits, and they have pushed again and again for the extension of copyright. That they have succeeded time and again in the last few decades is a sign of their power. But the truth is that, in repeatedly extending copyright, Congress is denying to the rest of us what is rightly ours: works that, until recently, would have found their way into the public domain. So, if we produce a play at a college, sing a song, post a video, upload a photograph, or quote a snatch of T. S. Eliot's poetry in the process of producing something of our own, we find ourselves in deep trouble.

Consider what it would mean if the pharmaceutical industry were to succeed in getting Congress to extend the patents they own in the same fashion. The principle at stake is the same. Intellectual property was created with an eye to the public good. What does the public gain from extending copyright? And what does it lose? These are the appropriate questions to ask.

If our copyright laws were not already a disgrace, we would not be discussing enormities like SOPA and PIPA.

We have a new tab, "Intel," up there on the right. It's a place where Members can ask questions of the Ricochet community and receive in response pointed, substantiated answers.

Our Objectives

We're doing this for three reasons:

1. To help all of us win more arguments. The Logo -- who, like most of you, lives in deep blue territory -- frequently finds himself arguing with Leftist friends and relatives. They unfurl some wild-eyed canards about the evils of free markets or the glories of big government/European bureaucrats/Che Guevara, and The Logo disputes their accounts with whatever information he can recall. Later, The Logo digs up the most left-credible documentation he can find and emails them the specifics of his case.

   "Wouldn't it be great," The Logo has thought, "if the Ricochetoisie could look up this kind of information in a knowledge base? And if the information wasn't yet there, wouldn't it be even greater if they could ask their fellow Members to please dig up the information for them? And that they'll need it within a certain amount of time?"

2. To share knowledge.  College students and other conservative newcomers have requested the ability to ask simple questions, like "What's a paleocon?" Our regular discussion threads can be a little intimidating for what is potentially a short, pithy exchange.
    
3. To make great points more accessible. We love our discussions on Ricochet -- the fast, zinging exchanges reflected by our name. Very often in these discussions, a Member will come up with a great argument that really hits the nail on the head. But it's hard to isolate a single comment in a thread and attach it to the central point it addresses, so that great point tends to get lost.

What It Is

As you can see for yourself, the Intel tab consists of a list of questions that Members or Contributors are asking. Urgent questions are highlighted in orange and are at the top of the list, with questions deemed Important or merely Curious arranged below them. The questions show how many answers they've received so far, and, if they're Urgent, how much time remains to produce an answer.

Clicking on a question takes you to a page where the question gets answered. Members can make short, clarifying comments below the question, offer answers, and make comments about each answer. Members vote on which answers they like the best, and the answers with the most votes float to the top of the list. We encourage Answer Owners to edit them in response to comments or to make general improvements.

Oh, and that pinging orange ball you saw when you first loaded this page? That appears whenever an Urgent, unexpired question is active. It re-pings every two minutes -- enough to remind you of its presence but not so frequent as to be distracting.

What It Isn't

The short comment structure doesn't lend itself to debates or epic questions.  "What does gay marriage say about the meaning of human existence?" may be the worst of all possible questions for the Intel tab.  

Where It's Going

We're planning a number of improvements in the weeks ahead:

• Tag searches.  Each question has a field for entering category descriptions.  These tags are currently stored, but we don't have a tool for organizing and displaying them.  That should change in about a month.
• Deletable comments and answers.  For cleaning up the Q&A.
• Question ordering by activity level, instead of just chronology.  
• Community-controlled answers.  Right now, each answer is "owned" by the Member who wrote it.  The Answer Owner has control over changes to the answer, although the community influences the answer through votes and comments.  In a few months, we plan to give answer authors the option to either own the answer themselves or give control of it over to the community -- in the form of a wiki -- for revisions.

Why It's Called Intel

A descendant of a 20th century U.S. President told us that our Urgent question structure reminded him of his days in military intelligence. "I'm submitting a high priority request for a map of this sector within 45 minutes."  We liked the behind-enemy-lines imagery, hence "Intel."

So, please get out your hammer. A nail is waiting.

On the ground and off the plane in sunny, gorgeous, historic Charleston, South Carolina, where things are getting interesting fast. A plane of about 75 percent reporters and TV pundits turns on their phones as the landing gear kachunk, and the beeps drown the silence: Rick Perry has decided to follow Erick Erickson's advice and play kingmaker, endorsing Newt Gingrich. We knew he was getting out, and his remaining fanbase is small, but the timing of the endorsement—a well done one (talking specifically about redemption and the need for bold change)—follows on the news that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa after all, and mutes the news of Gingrich's ex-wife coming out of the woodwork for one more interview. Tonight's debate should be interesting to say the least.

I talked with one South Carolinian friend, a small businessman in the city of my youth, about his intentions. A former Perry backer who has since turned agnostic, he was planning to vote for Gingrich, while his wife (he Episcopal, she a Mormon) planned to go for Romney. He said, over a lunch of fried Okra: "I just think Romney's running a campaign on numbers, not on principles. And to beat Obama in a way that matters, we need someone who's about more than just the bad numbers." Even his wife acknowledges the momentum here is with Gingrich. But will the last debate confirm that, or will it be impossible to top his last performance? Will the ex-wife be news to people, or is it just dry bone scandal? And will Romney's final oppo blitz—in ads and direct mail—halt the former Speaker's second rise?

They don't know, and I can't guess. I can tell you the big question on the media's mind: Could Mitt Romney go from 2-0 to 1-2 in the space of 72 hours?

Can you really fall out of bed looking good, like the New York Times says? "Goodbye, lip liners, brow pencils, spackled-on foundations. The hottest beauty trend of 2012 is imperfection": 

The new look for the new year is effortless, minimalist, just-out-of-bed-with-your-lover, according to leading hair and makeup artists. They say that stiff coiffures, overdone eyes, defined lips and matte skin are out. Tousled hair, smudged eyeliner, dewy lips and luminous skin are in.

I don't know about you, but this is not a fashion trend that works for me. I don't feel like myself until I'm fully showered, dressed, and make-uped in the morning. And there's no way I'm leaving the house until those things happen (unless I'm going for a run outside). It doesn't seem proper to start the public part of your day without being fully put together. Besides, what's wrong with glamming it up! 

But I must be out of the loop. After all, this article in today's Wall Street Journal informs me that teens have taken the "just-out-of-bed" look to a new high. They are going to school, to Starbucks, and to the mall wearing pajamas from their favorite brands (like Gap, Abercrombie, Victoria's Secret). If this is the new minimalism, there certainly seems to be a lot of effort that goes into it:

Juliana Dokas spends 45 minutes getting ready for school in the morning, straightening her hair, applying mascara and, some days, putting on her pajamas.

The 13-year-old wears a pair of red-plaid flannel pants to Murray Junior High in St. Paul, Minn., along with a rotation of baggy sweatpants and flared yoga pants. She pairs them with a "cami" (camisole tank top), a "hoodie" (hooded sweatshirt) and fuzzy slippers. "It's both comfortable and cool," the eighth-grader says of her lounge-around style. 

I realize that this is now a fashion trend, which is probably why it merits an article in two national publications, but it doesn’t matter what the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal say: spending your day outside in pajamas makes you look like a slob, not a fashion maven. 

Me, I'm as confused as Rob Long is about SOPA. That's why, earlier today, I thought I'd find out more in the modern way. I Tweeted:

Should I be for or against this SOPA thing? I'm agnostic, in the way I once briefly was about Julian Assange...

Here were some of the replies:

depends whether you're 'agnostic' about corruption

Well, if you're for it, you're going to have to stop calling yourself a libertarian. If that helps.

AGAINST! Jesus, James - get a grip!

So I conceded that I was probably against SOPA but wondered what might be done to protect intellectual property rights.

Here were some of the replies:

If enforcing property rights on the Internet troubles you, why not use Obama's 'Kill-Switch' and shut the whole thing down.

Read this: http://ip.cream.org/ and never take question begging nonsense like "intellectual property" at face value again

We don't? Intellectual property rights, are not a natural but a state created right (and thus not one at all).

Can you see what troubled me about these responses? I felt like a nature rambler, out for a nice country walk who'd curiously - and without malice - prodded something with his stick only to realize it was full of irritable hornets.

OK - maybe Twitter was the wrong place to go asking; yes, I accept the limitations of the 140-word medium; sure Twitter lends itself to snarkiness.

Nevertheless, there was something in the shrillness, the impatience, the dogmatism, the God-you're-so-stupid-if-you-can't-see... of those responses which was disturbingly familiar. I've encountered the same thing whenever I've written a blog post mildly criticizing - or failing to give sufficient mention to - Ron Paul; and also when I first expressed my doubts (quite justified, as it turned out) about the appalling Julian Assange. And what I blame here is the surprising prickliness and intolerance of libertarians.

Being of a libertarian persuasion myself I find this rather depressing. I yield to no man in my loathing of the overweening state and I have taken a great deal of flak from liberal-leftists for expressing this loathing in my usual sensitive, subtle way. I believe in liberty. Darn it - I believe in the legalization of drugs. Yet still, I find myself being lectured by self-styled libertarians that I'm not a proper libertarian because I don't share, say, Ron Paul's foreign policy views or because I believe that creatives should somehow be paid for their ideas rather than having them ripped off willy-nilly for the greater good of "freedom of information". This tendency is not just tedious and annoying but also self-destructive. If libertarians are going to bring skeptics round to their position, surely a bit less shrillness, finger-wagging and irritability is in order, and a bit more charm and patient explanation. I know this can be difficult in a world where cultural Marxism holds sway. But you know what: not all of us have the time to spend our every waking hour reading Reason or boning up on obscure essays like this one on The Libertarian Case On Intellectual Property Rights.

Maybe it's time libertarians lightened up a bit, chilled out, smoked a bit more weed. After all, isn't that kind of the point?

Lately I find myself feeling newly hopeful for the United Kingdom--or, rather, for all that soon may be left of the United Kingdom.  Below, my thoughts.

Brother Delingpole, if you consider them sound, when would you like to get together to pop the cork on a bottle of Bolly?

Item:  At the big euro summit late last year, Prime Minister David Cameron vetoed the new treaty that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy were proposing.  The treaty would have transferred to Brussels still more sovereignty from each of the member nations of the European Union, in particular the power to decide fiscal and economic policy independently. Cameron, I repeat, said "Nothing doing."  Cameron may be, as James insists, a weak and befuddled prime minister.  Yet even if he is, so to speak, the wrong man acting on the wrong reasons, he did the right thing.

Item:  As best I can tell, nearly the entire political class in Britain now recognizes that Cameron's decision set in motion a dynamic.  Britain cannot now stand still.  Either it must reverse Cameron's decision, crawling back to Merkel and Sarkozy, or it must ratify Cameron's decision by regaining a sense of Britain's distinctive place in the world as a great trading nation and one of the leading centers of finance.  It must cease the long slow dribble of sovereignty from Westminster to Brussels, in other words, beginning to act once again like a proud and free nation.

Item: In 2014, Scotland will hold a referendum on independence from the rest of the United Kingdom. Polls indicate that the Scots nationalists might very well win.  If they did so, it would prove only a matter of time--and not much time, at that--before the people of England and Wales asked why Scottish MPs continued to sit in Parliament.  And it would prove only a matter of time after that before said Scottish MPs were asked to leave.

Item:  As the nearby chart indicates, what remained of the United Kingdom would prove overwhelmingly Conservative.  (In the chart, which shows parliamentary constituencies, blue represents the Conservative, or Tory, party; red, Labour; orange, the Liberal Democrats; and, yellow, the Scottish Nationalists.)  In effect, a new country would have been created--a country dedicated to low taxes, economic dynamism, close ties to the United States and the Commonwealth, and renewed pride in the ancient British tradition of liberty.

What say, James?  Shall you and I get together in the Albert Hall for proms in the spring of, say, 2015, and sing at the top of our lungs?

There's a lot in the news about the two bills currently stuck in Congress that (purport) to protect owners of intellectual property against piracy and counterfeiting.  

The best -- and clearest -- description of the current SOPA and PIPA debate is here, at Forbes.com.  It's an excellent primer, written by Larry Magid, who has done a great service, to me especially, with his work.  I'll except some of it here, but it's really worth it to read the whole thing:

What are SOPA and PIPA and why are people upset?

This is all because of two pieces of legislation: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and its Senate companion bill, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).  The purpose of these bills is to make it harder for sites — especially those located outside the United States — to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material such as movies and music as well as physical goods such as counterfeit purses and watches. Even most of SOPA and PIPA’s strongest opponents applaud the intentions of the legislation while deploring what it might actually accomplish.

Although its sponsors have said that they would amend the bill, as currently written, SOPA would enable the U.S. Attorney General to seek a court order to require “a service provider (to) take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.” Until this weekend, one of the ways to do that would have been to cut the DNS (domain name server) records that point to the site, but that provision is likely to be removed after the Obama administration weighed in on the issue over the weekend, saying “Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.” The administration also echoed concerns raised by a number of security experts, including some anti-malware companies that the bill could disrupt the underlying architecture of the Internet.

The White House statement coincided with sponsors agreeing to remove the DNS blocking provisions. Still, the bill could require search engines like Google to delete any links to the sites.

These are not partisan bills. SOPA and PIPA have proponents and opponents on both sides of the aisle.

In a nutshell, it's this:

Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley

These bills have pitted the entertainment industry against the technology industry. “Hollywood” has a legitimate interest in protecting its intellectual property. Not only are profits at stake but so are jobs. Thousands of Americans make their living by dreaming up content and selling it to the world and piracy does in fact take money out of their pockets.  Silicon Valley has invested billions in creating companies that freely distribute information. While Google and every other Silicon Valley company must respect copyrights, they thrive on helping people find what they want. If, suddenly, every web site that had links to other sites had to worry that they could be in violation of the law by linking to a “banned” site, it could put undo pressure on these companies. There is also worry that SOPA and PIPA could be abused and lead to censorship for purposes other than intellectual property protection.

In today's NYTimes, though, another thoughtful piece suggests that it's not such a clear case of Good Guys (internet guys, Google guys, Silicon Valley guys, open web guys) against the Bad Guys (Hollywood, Big Media, copyright owners).  Jaron Lanier writes in the Opinion section:

The proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, which is being considered in the House while the Senate looks at a similar bill, is deemed the worst thing ever. Popular sites likeWikipedia staged a blackout on Wednesday to protest the bills. Google put a black banner over its name. Nothing quite like that has ever happened before. This is extraordinary, because it shows that belief in the priority of fighting SOPA is so absolute as to trump the stated nonpartisan missions of these sites.

The legislation has indeed included draconian remedies in various drafts, so I join my colleagues in criticizing the bills. But our opposition has become so extreme that we are doing more harm than good to our own cause. Those rare tech companies that have come out in support of SOPA are not merely criticized but barred from industry events and subject to boycotts. We, the keepers of the flame of free speech, are banishing people for their speech. The result is a chilling atmosphere, with people afraid to speak their minds.

He then reminds us that there isn't really an "open" internet.  Content and conversation have simply moved to sites -- like Google and Facebook -- that collect information and sell it to advertisers.  Here's his example:

For instance, until a year ago, I enjoyed a certain kind of user-generated content very much: I participated in forums in which musicians talked about musical instruments.

For years, I was warned that old-fashioned control freaks like media moguls might separate me from my beloved forums. Perhaps a forum would be shut down because it was hosted on some server with pirated content.

While acknowledging that this is a possible scenario, a very different factor — proprietary social networking — is ending my freedom to participate in the forums I used to love, at least on terms I accept. Like many other forms of contact, the musical conversations are moving into private sites, particularly Facebook. To continue to participate, I’d have to accept Facebook’s philosophy, under which it analyzes me, and is searching for new ways to charge third parties for the use of that analysis.

At the moment that wouldn’t bother me much, because I know a lot of people at Facebook and I know they are decent. But I’ve seen what happens to companies over time. Who knows who will be using my data in 20 years?

This is an excellent point.  And it's worth remembering during all of the high-drama outrage and the hysterical "blackouts" on the web, that we are really talking about two competing business models organized by very large and powerful industries.  It's not David vs. Goliath.  It's Mothra vs. Godzilla:

We in Silicon Valley undermined copyright to make commerce become more about services instead of content — more about our code instead of their files. The inevitable endgame was always that we would lose control of our own personal content, our own files. We haven’t just weakened Hollywood and old-fashioned publishers. We’ve weakened ourselves.

Read the whole thing.  If you're like me, it's just made you a little more confused.  Which is a good outcome, frankly. 

Great discussion on marriage and life over the weekend. Thank you for such a thoughtful exchange of ideas. Here are some responses to some of your questions and comments.

Peter Robinson wrote,

"Marriage...creates and sustains not only children but civilization itself."

Beautifully put, Senator.

Welcome to Ricochet--and although this site hasn't endorsed a candidate, I think we all agree that this is a better race for your presence in it.

Peter, thanks!  This means a lot to me.  So many people hungry for principled leadership.  I'm really humbled and honored by your kind words.

Chris Deleon wrote,

The problematic assumption underlying the shift in attitudes about marriage in our society is that marriage is for the happiness of the couple.  This is where our very self-centered culture has arrived.

While that is one of the purposes, ultimately the real purpose is deeper.  Marriage is about creating and nurturing children, and about fostering the self-sacrificial, long-term commitment and relationships needed to do so.

Societally, there is no other compelling reason to acknowledge and encourage marriages.  If it were all about happiness, people should be encouraged to do whatever they please and whatever makes them happy.

But because sex has these pesky (from the self-centered point of view) little side effects called children that must be cared for by someone, society has an interest in making sure those who create children are ready and committed enough to care for them.

As I've said before, all other issues hinge on these social issues.  You want to see dysfunction and national debt go through the roof (as they already are)?  Teach people to do whatever feels good, and throw the consequences upon the public.

Chris, we humans find it easy to act in ways that fail our high ideals of love, that's for sure (1 Corinthians 13) but thankfully "with God all things are possible."  No marriage can survive without a willingness to sacrifice for one another, for our children, and it sure helps to have God in the mix. Appreciate your support for marriage.

Tommy De Seno wrote,

If same sex marriage becomes licensed by the state, will there be more same sex marriages than there are currently same sex relationships?

Tommy, Gee, I'm not sure.  I don't think that's the main question.  Other questions loom larger for me such as: Will children be educated in public schools that traditional views of marriage are just bigotry to be discarded, if same-sex marriage becomes the law? Yes, for sure.  The point is that the meaning of marriage will change for everyone--to the extent government can influence our views, and supporters of traditional Christian and Judeo-Christian views on marriage will be treated by government the way we treat racists now. 

Don't believe me?  Check out this warning from a large group of interfaith religious leaders.

Many religious liberty scholars are expressing increasing concerns.  Appreciate your taking the time to think about this and ask the question, though!

Samwise Gamgee wrote,

Thank you, Senator, for your well reasoned post. 

Some people are afraid to talk about social issues because they fear conservative positions are irrational, purely based on religious sentiment, or knee jerk reactions.  What you have shown in your campaign is that social conservatives are reasonable and that our positions are well thought out and important in comparison to fiscal issues.

Personally, I don't care if our debt and unemployment are reduced to zero if we're still murduring millions of babies. Even if a ship is sound, sturdy and decorated with gold filigree, if it's pointed in the wrong direction, it's not one I want to be on.

I'm glad to see a major candidate voice these issues, on national TV, in print, but especially on Ricochet :).  I don't know if we've ever had a presidential candidate post here, it's pretty exciting.

Thanks again

Wow. Thank you.  Showing people that conservative positions on key moral issues are reasonable--that's such an important thing for leaders to do and I'm grateful and honored you think I'm doing it.

CJRun wrote,

Senator, with sincere respect, do you really?  Do you hold those truths to be self evident?  Are we all created equally?  If you believe that, in what sense do you believe that the federal government also has a role in these areas?

I anticipate that you might reference the previous roles the federal government has asserted and, thus, a need for some remedy.

Why not focus on the issue of getting the federal government out of our lives?

The "values" focus that is attractive in retail politics is divisive and inappropriate.  It makes explicit that we are not, at all, equal, and that we need our paternalistic federal government to sort these issues out for us, instead of extricating us from the mess that the federal government created in the first place.

When your campaign heads south in two weeks, to Florida, the hill you are defending will be a valley.  Amongst my family and friends, we may disagree on the particulars, but could unite on one aspect:  It's none of Washington's business.

If you chose to defend married couples and their children from slavery to debt, that might be more pertinent. 

Thanks so much for your expression of sincere respect, I appreciate it.  That's the way we should treat each other even when we passionately disagree on important moral issues.  To answer your question.  Yes.  Yes and Yes.  I really do hold these truths to be self-evident that all human beings are created equal and endowed by our Creator--not by our government--with certain inalienable rights.  Among these are the right to life.  But not the right to redefine marriage.

None of us has that right.  Marriage is unique for a reason--only marital unions can make new life and connect those children in love to a mom and a dad.  Sorry we disagree, hope you think hard about where the right to marry comes from and what it really means.

Nobody's Perfect wrote,

There was a time when I despised the gay rights movement.  I hated their attitudes, their rhetoric, their theater, their politics.  When they started demanding the right to marry, I was reflexively opposed, just like most people here. 

But there was one little problem; I simply could not get past the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  

There was a time, during World War I, when a German immigrant couldn't get a marriage license.  There was a time when a black man couldn't get a license to marry a white woman.  There was a time when a Christian who married a Jew was shunned by his community.  There was even a time when a Catholic who married a Protestant was cast out by his family.

Those days, fortunately, are gone.  Now we have only one tiny portion of our population that some people still want to hold as lesser than themselves.  Let this, too, pass, so that we finally, after all, honor the phrase, "...all men are created equal.."

Do you really think millions of Americans are standing up for marriage as the union of husband and wife out of hatred?  It saddens me that you think so.  If that was the root of your previous opinion well, it makes sense to me you wouldn't want to hold it any more.

By contrast I know that millions of Americans go to the polls, stand up to the charges of hatred and bigotry, because they love this country and believe defending marriage is important for the common good. Even if we disagree on same-sex marriage, can we agree on that? Good people, acting out of love for their country, want to stand up for the idea that marriage matters because children need a mom and dad?

Here's my view: we all have equal rights: none of us have the right to redefine the meaning of our most basic, foundational civilizational idea: marriage. Take care, and God bless you!

Bernai wrote,

Thank you Senator for posting here and with such eloquence.- I for one stand with you on these issues of Life and Marriage.  Hopefully you will post some other thoughts and ideas concerning some of the other important issues we face in the primary and upcoming election.

Thanks so much for asking! We need to cut taxes and regulations that are putting stumbling blocks to growing jobs, starting with a zero percent rate on manufacturing corporations so jobs don't migrate to China or even Canada--which has managed to make itself a cheaper place to do business in than the U.S.  We have to repeal Obamacare which is strangling job growth by the large and uncertain costs it's imposing.  We need a President who understands the dignity of work and seeks to make more Americans self-supporting, not dependent on government.  Pres. Obama's administration actually boasted they've put more people on food stamps than any other in history.  That's the attitude that has to change to get America back to work.   I will deal with the other critical issues of our future by cutting federal spending by $5 trillion over 5 years, supporting a Balanced Budget Amendment to stop the spending spree, repealing job-killing regulations, unleashing America's domestic energy potential, and reforming our entitlements on a sustainable path so that the future will once again be better in America.

And we also need a strong military resolute and aware of the threat radical Islam poses and to once again stand with our allies and for our interests and values around the world.

You can find out more here: ricksantorum.com 

Newt Gingrich's debate performance earlier this week helped him take the lead from Mitt Romney in the latest Rasmussen poll. Prior to the debate, Gingrich had 21 percent to Romney's 35%. Now?

Gingrich......33%
Romney......31%
Paul............15%
Santorum....11%
Perry............2%
Other............1%
Not Sure.......6%

Campaign watcher say we should get ready for some additional ugliness in South Carolina before Saturday's vote. Particularly from the SuperPACs. Not that South Carolina needs any help -- it has earned its dirty political reputation honestly. Let's get ready to rumble!

And of course, I heard it first in Turkey. 

When Mitt Romney was ahead in Iowa by 8 votes, it was called a historic victory. So even though the Iowa GOP is now calling Santorum's victory by 34 votes a "tie," I figure we can just call it a win. I hate that whole "You get a ribbon for just trying!" approach to life and think it's beneath the Iowa GOP. If one candidate gets to celebrate his 8-vote victory for the last few weeks, perhaps the real winner of the certified vote shouldn't be dismissed as having tied.

So Santorum won Iowa, Romney won New Hampshire and we might have our third winner on Saturday if Gingrich can upset Romney in South Carolina. Unlikely, but it could happen.

Not that the media ever should have taken an 8-vote victory as a sign that the nominating process was over for the season, but this seems as good a sign as any to keep this thing going, eh?

It was the sudden jolt of the truck that woke me in the middle of the night.   It was a windy evening in Oklahoma, where I gather almost every evening is windy.   The sound is like being inside a giant Coke bottle with someone blowing across the top as the wind howls over the gaps between the tractor and trailer, and between the trailer and the ground.  A shift in the direction of the wind changes the pitch of the howl, as the truck itself gets shoved back and forth by the gusts.  I enjoy my accommodations just fine, but some nights are a bit more enjoyable than others.  Still, I like running out west.  I'll take the blowing wind of the west over the blowing horns and extended middle digits of the northeast any day. 

The following morning, while making my way from the restaurant to the truck, I was assaulted by the most awful stench.  The culprit was a cattle hauler, parked upwind from my truck.  There were no cattle in the trailer, but they had left the documentation of their staff meeting behind and the wind was brusk.  Well the chips were down, as they say, and I was rethinking the whole steak and eggs breakfast routine when I saw the driver of the cattle hauler and his companion make their way to their truck.  The driver, wearing his obligatory cowboy boots and western shirt, had a large white cowboy hat on his head.  The little boy walking next to him couldn't have been more than 5 years old.  He wore tiny cowboy boots, and sported a white cowboy hat almost the size of his dad's.  In fact, the hat seemed to swallow the boy's head so that it actually looked like a pair of boots with a hat on top, scurrying across the parking lot.  Even a few of the other drivers stopped staring at their log books and maps long enough to enjoy the sight of that little guy walking as fast as he could to keep up with his pop.   As the cattle hauler pulled out of the parking lot, all we could see on the passenger side of the cab was a big white cowboy hat poking up over the dash, with a little hand pointing the way out of the parking lot for his Dad.   These are moments that I live for in this line of work.  

A few minutes later, I pulled the rig onto the highway.  The engine growled and the turbo screamed as ten gears slowly brought 80,000 pounds to highway speed.  Thanks to the wonders of Pandora, on my smart phone, I heard Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Kris Kristoferson, Waylon Jennings sing "Highwayman" through the truck's stereo.  On this day, it was tough to improve on that song, so I turned the music off and drove on with only the rhythm of the highway itself to keep me company.  Thoughts wander at times like that.  Thoughts of the roads in our lives, the decisions that we make that bring us to where we are today.  Thoughts of family and friends, of good times and bad.  Thoughts of where this coffee came from and what type of brake fluid they added to it this morning.  Thoughts of gratitude for a life well lived and the knowledge that our freedom and our happiness don't come cheap. 

Then, looking at the clock, I realized it was time for the ritual to begin.  Time to start scanning podcasts, news casts, talk shows, etc., in an effort to stay on top of the news.  Is Mitt cementing the deal?  Is Newt scaring Obama?   Has Obama declared the Senate in recess again and made a Supreme Court appointment?  Has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad grown a funny little mustache?  Has Pat Caddell had an aneurysm?  Has some guy in a black robe made a ruling and taken more of my freedom today?   It's almost dispiriting to sink one's mind into the abyss that is the news, especially after having soaked in the beauty of a such a good morning.  To go from the quintessential American experience of driving a big rig in the west, to hearing that a President who gave us over 150 new agencies in a two-thousand page health care bill now wants to "streamline" government is to soil the mind and spirit.  On the other hand, it is the steady neglect of important issues that has allowed the political class to play loose with the Constitution and steadily rob us of our national inheritance.  

So the news goes on, the mind absorbs, and the fight is renewed.  Ben Franklin famously said that the Framers gave us a republic, "….if you can keep it."  I would maintain that we can keep it,…but only through doing the dirty work of staying informed and keeping the pressure on those we elect.  Those who fashion themselves as our betters have made a mess that only a bull in a cattle hauler could envy.  Now it's up to us, the citizens, to get our hands dirty and clean up the mess.  The hour is late,…but not too late.  We on the right have our disagreements at times, but perhaps it helps occasionally to look up from the minutia and focus on the primary goals of conservative governance; a government that protects the lives, property, and freedom of its citizens from foreign aggressors as well as from domestic busybodies.  If we communicate this clearly, and expose for all to see the misery that the collectivist has brought everywhere his designs are imposed, we might just have a shot at saving the country.   Meanwhile, I need to start parking upwind of the cattle haulers.