I've seen some paintings of George W. Bush around the internet today, and I really had no idea what was going on with them. I didn't particularly care. I had also seen some stuff about someone hacking Bush's email account. I didn't care about that either, and also it sounded like too much effort to read about while I'm sick. (btw: I'm sick.) But the Daily Kos wrapped it up in a nice, short piece, and here's the gist of what happened: Some douche hacked into George Bush's email account and publicly distributed a couple of paintings he'd done of himself, in his free time, which had been sent to his sister. Other douches around the country are making fun of the paintings, criticizing Bush as an artist, and photoshopping stuff into them.
This strikes me as an obvious breach of ethical boundaries: yes, email hacking of political figures can have positive effects, re: journalism and important leaks. But these paintings aren't important political information. They're really obviously part of the private life of a person who happens to also have a significant public life -- or, at least, used to have.
Apart from the fact that it's Absolutely Not Cool to make fun of a non-expert artist for being not an expert at art, this also reflects on the screwed up idea in American culture that notable people are public property. It should be a no-brainer that responsible citizens of the internet shouldn't encourage this distribution and mutation of Bush's paintings.
If you're really curious, you can go googling, but I'm not going to embed the pictures or link to anywhere that posted them. (The Daily Kos article embedded them, so no link, but they were at least critical of the fact of their release.)