I was just listening to Thursday’s show regarding Comcast and Bittorrent.  Unfortunately I was listening to the pod-cast after the fact, as I would have really liked to have called in.  I believe the discussion missed a very crucial element of the issue:

Comcast was not simply throttling Bittorrent traffic.  They were forging fake data packets that appeared to come from machines on the Internet they did not originate from.

Consider a conversation via typed letters between myself and a friend, delivered by the USPS.  Now say the USPS is uncomfortable with the volume of letters my friend and I are exchanging, and decides to slow down delivery of some or all of these letters.  This would be throttling, and could prompt a reasonable “letter neutrality” debate.  Now instead the USPS decided to insert their own fake letters into the system, with my return address sent to my friend that said simply “stop sending me letters”.  (and vise-versa)  This would indeed be an efficient tactic to disrupt the conversation and reduce letter volume, but it would be quite clearly illegal.  (mail fraud)  This was the behavior of Comcast the FCC (and many others, myself included) so strongly objected to.

This was further compounded by Comcast’s initial and long-running denial of this behavior.  Which to me suggests they clearly knew the immorality (and likely illegality) of sending forged data packets.

This behavior by the way was confirmed by Google, the EFF, and I believe the FCC’s own study.

Multiple sources exist for this information.  Wikipedia contains a good writeup and many references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Network_neutrality

Thank you,
Derek Anderson

Plus they played with the stats too much. “There used to be X thousand meat processing plants, but now 13 produce 80% of the meat in this country.” This doesn’t tell me anything. That last 20%, is that 2,000 smaller plants? Or 3 other really huge ones? What percentage did the top 13 used to produce? Apples-to-oranges statistical comparisons make me distrust the source.

Not to say it was all bad. The patenting of GMOs and the strong-arm tactics of their producers are definitively abusive, which I have ranted about before.

But overall, it seemed more anti-corporate, anti-science and hippy-ish than anything resembling a reasonable collection of recommendations on how to better our food production system.

66% of people thought Obama won the debate last night, vs. 35% that thought McCain won.

Also, watch the ad Obama made out of McCain’s best line of the evening:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/obama_practices_political_juji.html?nav=rss_blog
It ends with video of McCain saying “I’ve voted with President Bush over 90% of the time, even more than most of my Republican colleagues”.

I’m a happy man.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles.ars
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog

Reminds me of one of my favorite Steven Colbert quotes: “reality has a well known liberal bias” =P

Mr. xxxxxxx,

I was shocked and appalled today by your “no” vote to reinstate habeas corpus via Specter Amdt. No. 2022.   I believe that while terrorists are a threat to America, the threat of a government able to indefinitely detain it’s own citizens without charge is greater.   Habeas corpus is a basic human right dating back over 700 years, and America set out on the wrong path when we abandoned it.   If people we have detained are criminals, let’s please convict them in the manner that has served our great nation for over 200 years.   I urge you to please change your position.

Sincerely,
Derek Anderson

BitKeeper provides a “Free Linux License” for their version control system which Linus and other major kernel developers have adopted for Linux development. Linus’ employer OSDL employs many contractors working on many different projects. One of their contractors (on his own time – not on a contracted project) decided to create a truly open source version of the BitKeeper client. BitKeeper didn’t like this (for obvious reasons), so they threatened OSDL/Linus/everyone that “unless you convince OSDL’s contractor to stop his efforts on his own project, we’ll stop creating a Linux version of the BitKeeper client”. And now they’ve followed through.

This will obviously create a significant hardship for any OSS project using BitKeeper’s technology. (the Linux Kernel being the most prominent)

Now I feel that BitKeeper has the 100% right to control how they give/sell/whatever their own closed source products. We’ve got no course telling them what their business process should be. But this highlights EXACTLY why proprietary software is a significant business risk, even if it is completely free. If another company can rip out the rug from underneath you at any time for any reason, and you don’t have access and control of the products you depend on… You’re asking for trouble. And it Linus is powerless to stop it – there is little chance any of us have.

This is why software freedom matters. This is why I do everything I can to avoid non-OSS software. And this is *exactly* why I encourage others to do the same.

Whether or not you believe the Ten Commandments should be displayed in a state court house, Roy Moore was clearly wrong in defying the superior court order. But let’s look at the greater issue:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion or the preference of one religion over another. Prior to the Civil War and the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. But today, it is clear that the United States Constitution applies to (and takes precedence over) the individual states. But what does it mean to establish a religion?

To answer that question, the Constitution points to the Judiciary system as the interpreter of the law.

In 1947, during “Everson v. Board of Education“, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black held:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”

But does displaying the Ten Commandments break the Establishment Clause?

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), The Supreme Court established the “Lemon test“, which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1. The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion.

If any of these three prongs is violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled the monument unconstitutional, as a prohibited endorsement of religion by the government, as the monument broke the first and second requirements of the Lemon Test. (He did not voice an opinion on the third.)

The legitimacy of the court ordering former Justice Roy Moore to remove the monument is clear. It was unconstitutional to publicly display the Ten Commandments in a state judiciary building. And to those proclaiming Moore was not using his position to push one religion over another, Judge Myron Thompson noted that after taking office:

[Justice Roy Moore] routinely invited clergy to lead prayer at jury organizing sessions.

And that during his removal proceedings Justice Roy Moore answered “yes” to all four of these questions:

• Was your purpose in putting the Ten Commandments monument in the Supreme Court rotunda to acknowledge GOD’s law and GOD’s sovereignty?
• Do you agree that the monument, the Ten Commandments monument, reflects the sovereignty of GOD over the affairs of men?
• And the monument is also intended to acknowledge GOD’s overruling power over the affairs of men, would that be correct?
• When you say “GOD” you mean GOD of the Holy Scripture?

These are not the words of a man who was accidentally caught in a legal battle defending a personal religious preference. This was an unabashed attempt to formally entangle judaeo-christian religious doctrine into the Alabama judicial system.

During the controversy Roy Moore argued that his right to acknowledge God was denied. It should pointed out, however, that he retained his right to acknowledge God as a private person. It was only a violation of the establishment clause to erect a religious monument on government property.

Note: The Supreme Court itself has several depictions of the Ten Commandments. However none of the depictions contain the full text of the Ten Commandments, although one does partially show commandments six through ten in Hebrew.

The ideals I grew up with: that ethnic, cultural and religious diversity are good and promote a stronger, healthier society. That the personal freedoms of others take precedence over my beliefs as to how they should live their lives. That a person CAN be moral without having to appeal to the approval of a given religious institution. They just aren’t held by the majority of Americans. It’s not that America was tricked or mislead; the majority, from my current vantage point, just seems to be the same xenophobic, homophobic, illogical, bible/koran-thumping, fear-mongering, reactionary mass as the rest of the world.

And people like me are the one’s who are different. I’m in the minority.

I love this country dearly. But I’m losing faith that America has that something unique. Something intangible that separates us from the rest of this crazy, messed up, hateful, intolerant world. I fear this country has become drunk on its own power and self-righteousness, and is leading down the same path as every other superpower in the history of mankind.

And that there isn’t anything I can do about it.