I was over at Lawrence Lessig's blog, besides being smarter then me, he has taken a subject, intellectual property and the cultural issues that IP encompasses, and immersed himself in it; then like a small globe he has turned and examined it every which way, so agree with him or not when he says, "The Weath of Networks, is out. This is — by far — the most important and powerful book written in the fields that matter most to me in the last ten years." Despite my contrarian tendencies to any book recommendations one seldom sees such accolades. And while the book can be purchased at Amazon, it is also available free as a pdf, The Weath of Networks. What little I've skimmed through tells me that its fairly academic and might be a little jargon ladden for some so if you're not sure its for you, individual chapters are also available for download.
Today the House Energy and Commerce Committee struck a blow to Internet freedom by voting down a proposal to protect Network Neutrality from attacks by companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.
The diverse, bipartisan SavetheInternet.com Coalition vowed to continue rallying public support for Internet freedom as the legislation moves to the full House and Senate. In less than one week, the coalition gathered more than 250,000 petition signatures, rallied more than 500 blogs to write about this issue, and flooded Congress with thousands of phone calls.
Don't put any fists through the walls yet, House Committee Vote Results: The Momentum Shifts in Our Favor
There's a white hot firestorm on the issue on Capitol Hill. No one wants to see the telcos make a radical change to the internet and screw this medium up, except, well, the telcos. And now members of Congress are listening to us. The telcos have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years lobbying for their position; we launched four days ago, and have closed a lot of ground. Over the next few months, as the public wakes up, we'll close the rest of it.
Just for something different. a different take on today's news about Karl Rove's tectimony I was going to link to a self desribed " New Hampshire Republican with decidedly libertarian leanings", but and I say this without hyperbole, he cannot grasp the most fundamental facts of the Plame leak. He writes, " Apparently, the disclosure of Plame's CIA employment is a crime only if the leak originated in the White House as part of an effort to retaliate against Plame's husband. While it's not clear that anyone from the White House made any such disclosure.." He links to this story which is supposed to support his case, Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago
Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.
What is it that the con-libertarian doesn't understand about senior administration official. The leak came from the Whitehouse. Woodward was the person leaked to. 1+1=2
Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday.
It's unclear when Fitzgerald sent the target letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Sources close to the two-year-old leak investigation said when Rove's attorney received the letter Rove volunteered to appear before the grand jury for an unprecedented fifth time to explain why he did not previously disclose conversations he had with the media about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.
A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. In a prepared statement Wednesday, Luskin said Fitzgerald indicated that Rove is not a "target" of the investigation. A "target" of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.
Last week, Rove was stripped of some of his policy duties in a White House shakeup orchestrated by incoming Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. The White House insisted that Rove was not demoted, but insiders said the executive branch is bracing for a possible indictment against Rove.
For those interested in some of the better reasoned speculation about what this might mean, Karl Rove Restifies a Fifth Time Before Grand Jury
He was a tall, large-boned man, loosely built. His lips were always
moist and when closed they were never in tight contact. He had
the reputation of a liar, and, as is often the case with those who
suffer from that weakness, people liked him. Nor, indeed, were
his fibs, as a rule, made out of whole cloth. They usually had a
basis of truth. When he told a story and he felt that it was
producing no effect he would "play it up," as newspapermen would
put it, often quite grotesquely. Altogether he was so inclined to
overemphasize and embellish his facts that it was not always easy
to say where truth ended and fiction began. Somehow it seemed to
me as though the moistness and looseness of his lips had
something to do with his mendacity
He was an ignorant man, barely able to write down an address
The Rise of David Levinsky by Abraham Cahan