Democrats Appoint RIAA Shill For Convention 698
An anonymous reader sends us to Boing Boing for a report that "the Director of Communications for the RIAA, Jenni Engebretsen, has been appointed Deputy CEO for Public Affairs for the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver." The DNC site has the official press release. Cory Doctorow notes that the RIAA is the most hated "corporation" in America, having beaten out Halliburton and Wal-Mart for the honor, and writes for the DNC's attention, "This represents a potential shear with the left-wing blogosphere."
Shill? (Score:5, Interesting)
They didn't hire a shill. They just hired someone who used to work for the RIAA. Big deal. The Pope used to work for Hitler too, but it's not relevant work experience.
not to late (Score:5, Interesting)
you know the Lib party is pretty sound once you get past the "smoke pot" platform. and honestly I firmly believe that because they push that platform so hard is why nobody even thinks of jumping ship from republican or democrat to Libertarian.
I personally like their ideals and goals, and for the most part they do make sense in every aspect if you sit and listen to them.
too bad 90% of americans are baying sheep that are to cowardly to vote for a 3rd party.
Re:Shill? (Score:5, Interesting)
Using that line of reasoning, one could then say the same about Cheney and Haliburton's past relationship when he became a part of the administration:
"He's not a Haliburton guy. He just used to work for them. Big Deal."
Your comment is actually not that uncommon. You will see similar comments whenever there's any hint that a person affiliated with a political organization has a less-than-acceptable prior 'relationship record'.
However, you'll see a lot more leniency when the comments are being made about someone in the democrat/leftist/liberal camp.
Now you understand the double standard that exists in general when reporting political relationships depending on which political party you're referring to at the time.
Re:not to late (Score:3, Interesting)
And there is nothing wrong with handgun deregulation. You have a right to own one. Its the second most important amendment to the constitution. That some people misuse them for illegal activities is no reason to take my gun away from me.
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:1, Interesting)
Considering how McCain and Bush smashed each other going for the nomination in 2000, McCain can almost run as the challenger, instead of the incumbent party.
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)
The democrats are just as much panderers to corporate interests and net stupidity as the republicans are. No more, no less. Both parties are drifting, and it's not right or left, it's just downhill.
Free speech is neither a right-wing nor a left-wing value. It's simply a value.
"Worst Company"? Hardly. Read here. (Score:2, Interesting)
Specifically, I'm talking about the 'worst company in america' award that the RIAA supposedly won.
When I read the headline, it smelled fishy. So, I did a tiny bit of research and found:
You would be wrong then (Score:2, Interesting)
Shill-
2.a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
She was a hired PR flack. The word "shill" is exactly right in this context.
Re:That's Not How I Remember It (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, as a bleeding heart liberal, I'll say it. The Democratic party sucks their own big donkey balls.
I'll take McCain, even though I disagree with him on several issues, over Hillary any day.
Re:So does this mean (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess we US Citizens have short memories because we can tend to forget the injustices that the Democrats did against the US people? Their corruption does not count.
Now there are ties to the RIAA again, and all one has to do is cite Wikipedia allowing us to completely ignore or rewrite history in favor of the Democrats.
I'll bet people even forgot when Tipper Gore was censoring music lyrics and forced warning labels on CDs and video games, and doing so had the prices of them raised up to cover the cost of the rating system. Full support of the Democrats on that one as well.
Anyway I hope Barack Obama gets the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton, as I trust him a whole lot more than I trust her, because Obama hasn't stabbed the US in the back like Clinton has.
Is Democracy fundamentally flawed ? (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that democracy such as it is in America is a fundamentally flawed system. Consider these two citizens:
Citizen A works a good job, contributes over $10,000 to the general welfare through the IRS, takes interest in politics and tries to vote conscientiously having studied the issues and their possible ramifications on the life of his fellow citizens and the country at large. After some consideration - not much, mind you - he casts his vote for the candidate he seems best apt for the function.
Citizen B works, but barely clears enough to keep his apartment. Concerning taxes and contributions through the IRS, close to zero. Having no family, politics really don't interest him. He gets up in the morning of November 6 and votes, but more to get even with 'the man' than with any knowledge of what the candidate wants to accomplish.
Many would agree that Citizen A contributes more to the common good of the country - and yet the political system grants him no more power than that which Citizen B has. The reality is that their votes are equal, independently of whether they have even the intention of promoting the general welfare and even independently of their ability to contribute to it.
At face value such a system seems nonsensical - but it is the system in which we live. And worse, we can't even seem to count the votes that are cast, as the debacle of the elections of the year 2000 showed.
Perhaps it is un-American to pose such fundamental questions, but really the situation as it stands really should be thought through:
1/ is the system one man one vote really indicative of the actual political power of the average citizen?
2/ is the democratic system even capable of representing the people (as it claims) when only 45% of the populace even votes? Does it even have the mandate to rule when the majority don't even cast a vote?
3/ isn't it unjust to give Citizen B the same political power as Citizen A?
Ironically it seems that the average citizen had more political power under monarchical rule, for at least the ruler was a known entity whose person could be influenced. Yet now we are ruled by the candidate who sells himself to the lowest common denominator, or who simply has more TV time than the others.
Just some food for thought. Anyone here actually think that these candidates are even interested in the common good? But I guess we have the leaders whom we deserve....
JJ+