Comment from me is unnecessary.
Here's a graphic from Keith Hennesey:
Click on it for a bigger version and Hennesey's analysis.
Harper weighs in on the so-called "Internet Kill-Switch",
an attempt by Your Federal Government to grab itself some additional
power over the USA bits of the Internet. Harper observes that folks like
McCullagh are doing a pretty good job of pointing out how broad
and arbitrary the proposed new powers are.
Which would bescary enough, but Harper goes on to point out that by framing the issue in that way, the civil libertarians have already given up way too much ground. Instead we should be getting answers to questions like these:1) What authority does the government have to seize, or plan to seize, private assets? Such authority would be highly debatable under any of the constitutional powers kill-switchers might claim. Indeed, the constitution protects against, or at least severely limits, takings of private property in the Fifth Amendment.
2) Would it be a good idea to have the government seize control of the Internet, or parts of it, under some emergency situation? A government attack on our private communications infrastructure would almost certainly undercut the reliability and security of our networks, computers, and data.
Get ready for the quote: "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it."
If you can stomach the story of a different government
Internet power grab, read Milton Muleller's
call to action. Specifically:
a shocking and dangerous turn in U.S. policy toward the global domain name system. It is a change that would reverse more than a decade of commitment to a transnational, bottom-up, civil society-led approach to governance of Internet identifiers, in favor of a top-down policy making regime dominated by national governments.
Mueller provides a link to an online petition. Can't hurt.
GOP Cowardly Weasel Watch: the House of Representatives had a chance to
Davis-Bacon "prevailing wage" enforcement for projects funded
by the huge spending bill under consideration, via an amendment
offered by Iowa's Steve King. This would result
in lower taxpayer costs, and more competition for unions.
In short, a good idea; unsurprisingly every Democrat voted Nay.
It lost, unfortunately, due to 48 Republicans joining with
Historical recap: after achieving sheer brilliance with the first two Shrek movies, the filmmakers stumbled badly with Shrek the Third. The good news is that they managed to recover a bit with this (apparent) last movie in the series. I chuckled most of the way through, anyway.
Our big green buddy has settled into a life of domestic bliss with the beautiful Fiona and three bouncing little ogrelets. Still… he's an ogre, after all, and a certain part of him misses the old days of adventure and misanthropy. It's a midlife crisis!
Since Shrek can't do what most of us guys do (run down to the Ford dealer and start pricing out red Mustang convertibles), he's glum, and easy pickings for the scheming Rumpelstiltskin. Before you can say "Frank Capra", we're in It's a Wonderful Life, as Shrek enters a universe where he's never been born.
Voices are great, especially Eddie Murphy. Lots of clever dialog and sight gags. The action sequences are neat (it was a 3-D movie in theaters). If I were looking to be critical: the sloppy sentimentality level is high. But that's OK.