Can You See Me Now?

Happy Monday to you all. Where is the time travel guy? I'd like to figure out how I can scratch that "Smoke Opium with Chairman Mao" item off my bucket list.


I'm nauseous, but not from Opium, from this.




Let's forget the fact that Glenn Greenwald has broken more news this week than lapdog journalist and sometimes Karl Rove dance partner David Gregory has, EVER. Let's forget the fact that we have a 1st Amendment for the reason so that we can be warned when politicians are doing bad things, like violating the 4th Amendment. Let's also forget the fact that there is enough space between Gregory's nose and lips to land a hovercraft. I'm a student of nonviolence. Gandhi and John Lennon are my heroes. But something about this Meet the Press shill activates a part of my lizard brain that looks for the weak areas to strike.

Gregory is just one big weak spot.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about Snowden. Is he a traitor? Maybe. I have no idea what info he gave to the Chinese or the Russians. But I do know about the information he gave to us. Where are the usual suspects who will howl like mad dogs at the slightest hint of a 2nd Amendment violation and why are they willing to lay down at the complete circumvention of the 4th Amendment?

"Collect everything on everyone all the time and sort it out latter" seem to be the NSA's position here. I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on the internet (and an occasional telenovela), but how does that square even remotely with our 4th Amendment protections? There is a neat little feature in Mac OS called "Time Machine" which enables you to go back in time and find that file you accidentally tossed. It's a nice feature for a personal computer, but it seems to me the NSA wants to create one for the whole world. No communication goes unrecorded. No harsh statement erased by time.

You can call that safety. But to me the NSA is claiming radical new powers and perverting technology in a despicable way. Even worse, I now find myself on the same side of this issue as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

It's not even 3:00 on Monday and I already need a shower.

You'll Be Warm In the Arms Of the Mayor of Simpleton.

Any Glenn Beck fans out there?

(I'm not just referring to swlip).

Well, either way my friend Marc Randazza of The Legal Satyricon is representing the owner of the website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlin1990.com in a domain dispute filed by Glenn Beck before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

I know, the WIPO? I had never heard of it either, but best I can tell it's some kind of one-world socialist domain enforcement entity funded jointly by the UN, Bill Ayers, and Roman Polanski.

You can read Glenn's WIPO complaint here.

Since it's possible Glenn Beck fans may not also be fans of Gilbert Gottfried, let me explain -- the name of the disputed website is a nod to a routine Gilbert did at the roast of Bob Saget, where he repeatedly referred to.....yes, Saget's rape and murder of a young girl in 1990.

The phrase is now a well-known "internet meme" which if you don't understand ask one of your kids or grandkids to explain it to you.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Beck fans may be confused by the website.

Marc's response is brilliant, and I urge everyone to take a look. In it he explains the social, cultural, and political background behind the site, the First Amendment implications of Beck's attack on what is clearly political satire, and the utter idiocy of Beck's claim of confusion.

There are too many highlights in Marc's brief, but this should give you a taste:

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent’s website wondering “where did all the race baiting content go?” We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent’s website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent’s website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck’s very rhetorical style. Beck’s skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent’s constitutional rights.

I also really enjoyed Marc's patient and thorough explanation of the evolution of "internet memes" and how God does not really kill kittens when....well, you know the rest.

Have fun betraying your alleged principles, Mr. Beck.