Condoleezza Rice's editorial in today's WSJ defends the administration's use of diplomacy with North Korea.

She writes: "We have no permanent enemies."

Nevermind that this may go down as the biggest Bush administration flip-flop since H.W.'s "no new taxes"...

Nevermind that Cheney is probably planning an invasion anyway...

Does Condi's stance suggest a tacit endorsement of Obama? I argue why it might after the break...

Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has put his progressive reputation and committee authority behind H.R. 4279, the so-called PRO-IP Act (the acronym stands for: "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property").

The act was recently passed by Conyers' judiciary committee and will now work its way onto the legislative schedule. It is backed by all the usual industry suspects (grouped together under the name of "the Copyright Alliance") and is a potential disaster insofar as it threatens to impede fair use and balanced enforcement while increasing the criminalization of non-commercial copyright infringement. H.R. 4279 would also create a new "Copyright Czar" within the federal government, a position that appears to be loosely modeled on the "Drug Czar" positions that have done so much to perpetuate the wasteful, expensive, and ineffective "war on drugs."

Those of us who value our digital rights and civil liberties should be concerned...

Here's a perfect example of how industry-sponsored lobby groups distort good science, de-rail reasonable policy, and sabotage practical initiatives that save lives:

Sally Pipes, the CEO and President of the Pacific Research Institute, authored an op-ed in the Bellingham Tribune entitled: "Thailand's misuse of 'compulsory licensing' allowed corrupt officials to steal millions".

The article is a bunch of lies. Period.

Robert Weissman, the director of Essential Action, "a public health advocacy and corporate accountability group based in Washington," replies to Pipes' hack-job in yesterday's Bellingham Tribune.

Weissman refutes Pipes' baseless claims one by one. He also points out a minor conflict of interest that Pipes' failed to disclose...

And that's just where the fun begins

Tim Wu's latest piece at Slate draws up a short list of tech policy priorities that an American president-elect ought to think about. They are:

1. appoint a broadband czar


2. create an FCC dream team


3. fix international tech policy


4. implement the technology of transparent government


5. find long term solutions for (a) immigration and (b) the patent system

He goes on to provide detail in each of these areas, mixing his analysis with an assortment of analogies linking Bush to Nero, Dracula and Brezhnev, respectively.

I enjoyed the article, but it left me thinking about where Barack Obama falls on these issues. Previous diaries on this site and other progressive bloggers like Matt Stoller have celebrated Obama's positions on technology - and for many good reasons. But there are still some areas where the candidate could stand to clarify his earlier statements and differentiate himself from his neoconservative and neoliberal predecessors.

Does the strike matter? What does it portend for the progressive blogosphere and the dailyKos community?

I am not really interested in discussing the merits of the arguments in the strike debate. Rather, I want to draw attention to the questions a strike raises about the nature of governance in Web 2.0 communities.

Read on below the fold...

Note: an earlier version of this diary entry was crossposted on my personal blog

I've been wondering what it would take for Obama to make a direct appeal to supporters to help pick up the tab for a vote-by-mail primary do-over in Michigan and Florida. Hard to imagine the Clinton camp doing something like this since they remain well behind in the fundraising department anyway.

Think about it: this is not only a textbook magnanimous PR gesture, but it would also increase democratic participation in the primary process, win delegates, and resolve Howard Dean's problems - thus scoring points with the DNC. How could Obama ask for more?

Furthermore, a direct and minimal appeal to supporters with offers for matching funds from the campaign and big donors ("Give us $1 to have another primary in Michigan and Florida, we'll match it 5-to-1") would further galvanize the participation of the democratic electorate in this campaign...