But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

There is a lot of technical analysis out there about the Obama-Alito exchange. I think this point is more important. The Republicans are actively attacking the court, in particular because of Roe, but also because of the "unitary executive" idea and resistance to checks and balances that informs their perspective on the GWOT. What is the impact of Obama joining in?

On a direct level, its a partisan attack on a political institution. It contributes to political divisiveness, and helps further undermine the system of checks and balances, which is the opposite of what Obama claims to be doing.

On an indirect level, it puts partisan conservatives in the odd position of defending the Supreme Court. Perhaps THAT was the intent?

In any event, they already seem to be back pedaling:

Vice President Joe Biden, appearing Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America," argued Obama "didn't question the integrity of the court. He questioned the judgment of it."

Someone recently told me that they wanted me to look at something in order to understand it, not hack into it. I'm a security vulnerability researcher. I don't understand the difference.

The Supreme Court judges things.

Randy Barnett's response to 'State of the Union: How did he do?' - The Arena | POLITICO.COM

Hoder watch...

Search Engine video podcast: Free Hossein Derakhshan, even if he's kind of a jerk! Boing Boing

We don’t believe in this democracy now. We don’t believe in this Congress. We need to restore the integrity of Congress so that we can believe once again in this democracy. But Congress reforming Congress — through the very process we all know has been hopelessly corrupted — simply won’t be enough to erase the stain that blights our politics now. We need an amendment that speaks to the fundamental commitment of Americans — to this Republic, and its democracy.

I find it impossible to be motivated by this rallying cry without actually seeing what change they intend to make to the Constitution. Perhaps this petition is what petitions really are - more about changing the minds of the people who sign them then about the changing the minds of the people who receive them.

Consider this mind unchanged.

There has been a lot of hand wringing in the past few days from liberal circles about the idea that speech which is published by a corporation shouldn't be subject to the protections of the first amendment. I find all this talk to be deeply wicked. Most places that publish professional thinking are corporations, including every news media outlet, radio station, political organization, book publisher, web site, think tank, or magazine. If Congress can regulate what these things publish there will be almost no speech which cannot be regulated. That's nonsensical.

If there is some sort of articulate principal that can be applied here that isn't tantamount to eliminating the First Amendment entirely I have not yet heard it articulated.

I don't think any of this campaign finance reform has made one lick of difference in our electoral process and I find the idea of amending the Constitution so that we can fine people for unlawful political speech to be among the most dangerous ideas that has ever come out of the left.

The thing that sucks about freedom of speech is that rich people can afford more speech than you can. Thats always been the case. Thats always going to be the case. That was understood to be the case when the Constitution was ratified. Rich people can pretty much afford more of everything than you can. Thats kind of how capitalism works.

You want an equalizer? Look to the Internet. The idea that in the era of the Internet we need more control over political speech than we did in the era of broadcast media is insane. People have other sources than television ads to decide who to vote for. We need only encourage them to use those sources.

Here's another idea. If we're really concerned about "democratic" elections being undemocratic, why don't we go back to having Senators chosen by State Legislatures instead of by popular vote? We obviously didn't really fix the problems we thought we were fixing when we chose the popular election of Senators, so maybe we should go back to THAT drawing board. Maybe they should be elected by the Representatives we send to the House? If you want to prevent a situation were a State fails to send Senators, that can easily be done by denying them all federal funding when the seats are empty.

Its simple, its true to form, and it doesn't undermine important civil liberties.

Change Congress | After Citizens United: Lessig on a Constitutional Amendment

With yet another X Factor winner, Joe McElderry, expected to cruise to Christmas #1 with yet another cover—this one of Miley Cyrus’ “The Climb”—the Internet said "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me."

The Internet versus Simon Cowell

"The U.S. is the most extreme when it comes to free speech," said Ballmer

He seriously characterized U.S. policy on speech as "extreme!"

Microsoft’s Ballmer Calls Out Google Over China Stance « The Energy Source - Forbes.com

This past weekend, I made some Futurama brain slug cupcakes for a birthday celebration.

These rule!

alicia policia: Brain Slugs!

A federal judge on Friday reduced a $1.92 million file sharing verdict to $54,000 after concluding the award for infringing 24 songs was “shocking.”

A $54,000 fine for the modern equivalent of shoplifting a $15 CD is still shocking. Absolutely incompatible with any reasonable conception of right and wrong. While Judge Michael Davis has pushed the pendulum toward justice it has further to swing yet before it finds equilibrium.

Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award | Threat Level | Wired.com

l0l

YouTube - I'm on a Mac (I'm on a Boat spoof) ft. PC-Pain - SwitchToMac.com

My friday needed some interesting fine art... BoingBoing obliged.

Arnold Bocklin was a 19th century symbolist painter whose work influenced and inspired Salvador Dali, Sergi Rachmaninoff, Marcel Duchamp and H. R. Giger. Adolph Hitler owned eleven of his paintings and cited Bocklin as his favorite painter.

Do we need to have a ethical debate about whether or not liking these paintings is a tacit endorsement of the holocaust?

Hitler's Favorite Painter (and one of mine too) Boing Boing

The Obama administration is backing $675,000 in damages a Massachusetts student must pay the Recording Industry Association of America for file sharing 30 songs.

1. Liberals who argued in the run up to the 2008 election that Obama's administration was not going to be staffed with copyright maximalists and that Biden's influence would mostly relate to foreign policy have been totally discredited. Obama is a copyright maximalist.

2. The Eight Amendment apparently doesn't apply to Jury awards in civil trials.

3. There is probably a fundamental problem here that requires a new Constitutional Amendment, as Congress can create excessive statutory damages on behalf of campaign donors who can collect through the civil court system. There is a direct profit model possible here - fund Congress person, get law, file suit, collect excessive damages, profit, repeat. Conservatives might argue that modern tort law is operating off this very business model today, but generally conservative interest groups support copyright maximalism, so they won't make that argument in this context.

4. The courts may uphold the 1.9 million dollar file sharing fine.

5. If that fine is ultimately upheld it may galvanize broad political opposition to the copyright maximalists.

6. If a 1.9 million dollar fine doesn't galvanize broad political opposition to the copyright maximalists, nothing ever will. Those interests may have too much control over what people think to ever have their interests threatened.

Obama Supports $675K File Sharing Verdict | Threat Level | Wired.com