It’s easy to interpret this as the work of a bunch of acne-ridden introverts crying out in anger over losing their access to free stuff, and that seems to be the popular assumption. However, such an assumption fails to take into account several important factors, as well as entirely missing the point of the protest. Over seven million people signed Google’s petition protesting this legislation. Several of the largest and most popular websites on the Internet “went black” to draw attention to the issue, even Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, has publicly voiced his opposition.

As a brilliant programmer and one of the web’s most successful entrepreneurs, Zuckerberg understands how the Internet functions as well as anyone alive. As one of the richest individuals on the planet, the man has no interest in piracy. His comments zero in directly on the heart of the issue.

“The internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can’t let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the Internet’s development.”

Even this understates the severity of the issue at hand. It’s not simply a matter of our legislators failing to think things through, but a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Internet works.

Our current Congress is one of the oldest we’ve ever had. That is to say, the average age of the people currently serving as senators (62.2) and representatives (56.7) is higher than it has been at almost any other point in our nation’s history. That may not seem like a big deal, but contrast this with the fact that we live in a time of exponentially increasing rates of change and development, unparalleled in the history of our species. Our elders are certainly just as capable as anyone else of staying on top of technological development, but doing so requires that one make a concentrated effort. I’ve met very few seniors who care enough to even pretend to make that effort, and (by their own admission, and evidenced by their arguments) our legislators fall into this category.

Simply put, Congress has no business legislating something they don’t understand, regardless of how good their intentions may be. Laws like SOPA are a bad idea for the same reason we no longer consider bleeding patients to be an acceptable medical practice: it does nothing to combat the illness (or even alleviate the symptoms), and only causes additional damage.

The thing about the Internet is it’s full of nerds. No government, or collection of governments working in tandem, will ever be able to combat the collective creativity of every nerd on the planet. No matter how drastic the measures they resort to may be.

It only takes one person to find a work-around before that information is shared with everyone else. A quick Google search yields step-by-step instructions on how to get around the changes that were proposed by SOPA, and this information has been available for quite some time. Think of it as a digital version of Vietnam, or the war on drugs.

The best the powers that be can ever hope to accomplish is to slow piracy down for a while. They can fight it, but they can never defeat it. Even if they cut off access to the Internet entirely, the global nerd community would simply build a new one. In fact, the plans for just such a thing are already in motion. One can only imagine the wanton piracy that would occur in such an unregulated environment.

People who are computer savvy enough to pirate will continue to be computer savvy enough to pirate. The only guarantee when it comes to Internet legislation is that the average, law-abiding citizen is going to be the one affected. When you give legislators the power to control your access to the Internet, you give them the power to determine what you see, read, and hear.

Keep in mind; the laws we create now will remain in effect regardless of how power changes hands. No matter how much you may support the current administration, or may support the next one, it will not be long before the pendulum swings back in the opposite direction. Republicans, how much faith are you willing to put in the Democrats to censor the Internet with integrity? Democrats, how much faith are you willing to put in the Republicans to censor the Internet rationally? What can we possibly stand to gain by allowing others to determine what information we have access to? I don’t know how much you respect your own intelligence, but I for one am adult enough to make those decisions for myself.

I remain unconvinced that piracy is even an issue worth worrying about. According to the Entertainment Merchants Association’s own statistics, piracy doesn’t seem to be hurting them. Blu-ray sales rose by 53% in 2010, and home video sales/rentals accounted for more studio video revenue than the box office, premium cable, and Video on Demand combined.

With the recent bust of MegaUpload in New Zealand, our government has demonstrated that it is fully capable of combating piracy without the need for additional legislation – even if the piracy is based in another country – and all without having to worry about due process.

SOPA and PIPA may have been defeated, but this is far from over. The entertainment industry will continue to lobby congress to pass anti-piracy laws, and we must continue to fight to protect the Internet. Piracy is an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of a world in which we can freely share information. We have a choice between taking a stand for our liberties, or giving them away so that a few select companies can see a negligible increase in profits. As the government loves to remind us in times of war, “Freedom isn’t free,” and they’re absolutely right about that. Let’s allow one of the wealthiest industries on the planet to foot the bill this time.

Those gut-busters in Pierre are at it again. Following the hilarity of their recently proposed tongue-in-cheek handgun legislation, our legislators have decided to keep the laugh-fest rolling with HB 1217, their latest bill on abortion. Explanation kills humor, but since there are so many of us who seemingly have trouble understanding the comedic genius behind it, I’ll try to clear things up a bit. As the bill contains several parts and deeply layered humor, I’ll go through it piece by piece.

The bill begins with a serious tone by proposing a 72-hour waiting period for anyone seeking an abortion, presumably in an effort to discourage all those abortion lovers who decide to go have one just for kicks. It’s no secret that terminating pregnancies is one of the primary forms of entertainment among liberals; it’s something akin to Elvis-themed Vegas weddings, often the culmination of an escalating game of alcohol-fueled truth or dare. By beginning on this serious note, the bill’s subsequent humor stands out in stark contrast, making it even more unexpected and hilarious.

During the waiting period, women are required to receive counsel from someone at the Pregnancy Help Center. The justification for this is to investigate any possible coercion which may have affected the woman’s decision to have an abortion, and at the same time attempt to coerce her into changing her mind. Ha! While the idea that women are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions without the sage advice of PHC volunteers who lack medical credentials may seem sexist on the surface, it’s just like when Family Guy makes sexist jokes. The humor comes from the fact that such attitudes are ridiculous in the 21st century, and not taken seriously by anyone who is fit for modern society. On another level, by pretending our views on gender are several decades behind the rest of the nation, this serves as brilliant commentary on the common misconception that we’re embarrassingly backwater and provincial here in South Dakota.

The humor goes even deeper when one takes into account the fact that the support for this bill is almost uniformly Republican. After going red in the face fighting against government intervention in health care for so long, they’re pretending to have completely flipped their principles around while under the influence of the intoxicating excitement resulting from the chance to attack abortion. They’re pretending to be drunk off zealotry, led around by their ideological boner in the same way that a drunken college student may let his hormones convince him to leave the bars with a girl he normally finds unattractive. This is quite possibly the most indirect, sophisticated penis joke I’ve ever heard. The layered humor continues by encouraging not only government intervention in health care, but additional intervention by requiring women to speak with a complete stranger about their personal medical decisions. Obviously, no fan of small government would ever take something like this seriously.

Finally, the bill states that if an abortion is carried out and coercion is later determined to be a factor in the woman’s decision, the doctor who performed the abortion is the one who will be punished. Here, the style of humor changes from satirical to goofy and random. Clearly, there is no logical reason to punish someone for another person’s behavior, and doing so would be shockingly immoral. Simply entertaining the idea is hilariously outlandish. While I don’t enjoy this style of laugh as much as the legislature’s social commentary, it does serve as evidence of their mastery of different styles of humor and ability to appeal to a wide audience. Considering how off the wall this is, you have to at least give them points for creativity.

While I like a good laugh as much as anyone else, I can’t help but feel that our legislature may not be taking their jobs as seriously as they should be. Comedy is great, but the House floor doesn’t really seem like the place for it. I guess the joke is on us for paying them to host open mic night in the capitol. They should probably give up politics and instead follow their apparent passion and talent for making people laugh. I think it would be best for everyone.

Mathias is a non-traditional student majoring in Spanish. Reach him at mjturner@jacks.sdstate.edu.

As someone with both an enthusiastic appreciation for the consumption of alcohol and two long years of experience serving it, I’ve learned quite a bit about how to get good service in crowded bars. Understandably, it may seem ridiculous to write a guide which outlines the treatment of people who are paid to serve you, but bartending is unique in that it reverses the typical relationship between vendor and customer: instead of the bartender making an effort to attract the interest of the customer in order to make a sale, the customer tries to attract the attention of the bartender in order to make a purchase. In a crowded bar, the staff is overwhelmed by people competing to be the next one served, and certain types of behaviors are more effective than others. I’m writing this with the assumption that the average customer goes to bars with the intention of getting drunk, does not like waiting in line for drinks and finds being served quickly preferable to being skipped over in favor of someone else.

As is to be expected, tipping well is among the most effective strategies. “Tipping well” means different things to different people, but a dollar per order is pretty much the standard in the world of bartending. If you’re ordering a bottle of beer, the bartender probably won’t care if you don’t tip a dollar; if you’re ordering for an entire group of people, you’ll probably end up waiting a while for your next drink if you don’t tip more than a dollar. The idea that tipping affects your service seems to offend people and may seem petty, but it’s a result of the nature of the job, not a personal vendetta. Bartenders (obviously) work in order to make money, and the vast majority of their wages come from tips (in fact, tips are the only thing which make the job worth doing). Preferential treatment is given to people who tip well because it encourages them to keep tipping well, which results in more money earned. Bartenders typically don’t care how long people who don’t tip have to wait, as long as they get served before they swear off ever coming back to the bar.

Tipping well tends to carry additional benefits beyond simply helping to ensure prompt, friendly service. The extra money I spend tipping is almost always balanced out by extra alcohol, in the form of both free shots and extra strong drinks. I generally don’t spend any more than I would have if I had purchased all the alcohol I end up consuming. Many people seem to be opposed to the idea of tipping in general, which I can understand. If that’s your stance, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised when other people get better service than you.

Speaking more generally, there is a long list of behaviors which many people seem to think will help them get served more quickly, though actually result in a longer wait. While skipping over poor tippers is nothing personal, ignoring people intent on being annoying can be one of the most satisfying parts of the job. As a general guideline, try to adhere to the same basic rules of behavior that you would anywhere else. Whistling, snapping and pounding your fists are equally as unbecoming in a bar as they are outside one and will not help you get drunk faster. If the bartender is busy with an order, interrupting to make it known that you want a drink only results in an annoyed bartender; standing at the bar already signals your desire quite clearly, and they’ll make it to you when it’s your turn. Along those same lines, holding or waving your money in the air is not any more effective than waiting patiently.

In my experience, the best way to get served in a busy bar is to stay calm, be friendly, make eye contact, and wait for the bartender to come to you. Try to pay attention, too; if the bartender has to try to get your attention when your turn comes up, they’ll likely go on to one of the many other people waiting for drinks. Really, apart from tipping, it’s more about what not to do.

Feel free to dismiss any of this advice on the grounds that everybody’s job sucks, bartenders are arrogant, and they don’t deserve any special treatment. These are all valid points, and I won’t disagree. However, I will continue to enjoy the benefits which come along with being on good terms with bar staff. Either that sounds worth it to you, or it doesn’t.

Mathias is a non-traditional student majoring in Spanish. Reach him at mjturner@jacks.sdstate.edu.

A round of applause to the thoughtful, freedom-loving students of SDSU who unbiasedly decided to live-and-let-live and ban smoking everywhere on campus. Much rhetoric in today’s political discourse is focused on the intentions of the founding fathers, and in keeping with that trend I’d like to point out that this is certainly the future they had in mind while looking out over the vast fields of tobacco which jump-started our fledgling economy. In fact, in keeping with the spirit of banning things that are annoying and poisonous, I think we should take this to its logical conclusion: anyone with a GPA below 3.5 should no longer be allowed to express their opinion 8212; about anything 8212; anywhere on campus. In the same way that we’ve banned smoking to avoid the spread of carcinogens, I dream of a campus where I can be free of, for example, the effects of the obnoxious, cancerous, second-hand racism of my redneck peers.

The benefits of such a ban would be enormous. Less chatter among students working as university employees would lead to more work being done, meaning we would get more out of the money we spend on tuition. With fewer side conversations acting as distractions, the students who most need it would have more time to focus on their studies and an easier time maintaining that focus. Even those students still allowed to voice their opinions would find it easier to concentrate with the decrease in sound pollution. Any overheard conversation would be more likely to contain intellectual substance, and the chance of being able to overhear such conversations would increase. Those least encumbered by information tend to yell the loudest; in the absence of such strongly opinionated, semi-literate political discourse, average blood pressure and stress levels would drop, increasing overall student health.

Really, this is only the beginning. Since we’re now all such health nuts and concerned about air quality, there remain many battles to be won. Car exhaust, junk food, alcohol, caffeine, coffee breath, cheap cologne, grandma perfume 8212; health hazards and annoying smells run rampant on our campus, previously unchecked by our righteous indignation. Finally, we’ve decided to take a stand against such affronts to our bubbles of personal comfort. This is America, and we have the God-given right to never be offended by anything. It’s about time we started putting it to use.

I’m sure my proposed ban would suck for those affected 8212; being stigmatized, unable to engage in otherwise perfectly legal behavior while on state property 8212; but to me it sounds utopian. At least they always have the option to walk off campus, should the urge to speak become unbearable. They should take comfort in the fact that this is what democracy is all about, and exactly why important issues of majority versus minority are generally put to public vote: so one section of the population can make itself marginally more comfortable at the extreme inconvenience of another.