Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Politics

Democrats Appoint RIAA Shill For Convention 698

Posted by kdawson
from the what-were-they-thinking dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats Appoint RIAA Shill For Convention

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:26PM (#18720805)
    That when I vote Republican, they'll sue my neighbor and her kids?
    • by Sunburnt (890890) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:37PM (#18721015)

      That when I vote Republican, they'll sue my neighbor and her kids?
      No, but I'd avoid trying to distribute pictures or videos of the convention. Of course, I'd probably avoid these things anyway.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dreddnott (555950)
      My first impression as a good non-article-reading Slashdotter was that Jenni Engebretsen was nothing but a career RIAA thug, but after reading the articles and her Wikipedia entry it seems that this is merely a return to the status quo - people should have been more alarmed when Jenni went from the Democrats over to the RIAA in the first place! I blame Boing Boing's inflammatory and sensationalist headline and Slashdot's repetition of it for most of the posts below.
      • by pallmall1 (882819) on Friday April 13, 2007 @02:40PM (#18722197)
        So you mean it's like she never went to the RIAA in the first place?
        • Re:So does this mean (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Orion Blastar (457579) <orionblastar@@@gmail...com> on Friday April 13, 2007 @04:14PM (#18723771) Homepage Journal
          I guess that also means that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton did not support the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act [ucla.edu] of 1998 and it was never passed in the first place? It is what gives the RIAA and MPAA control over the consumer's rights and freedoms in the first place and basically takes away "fair use" and other clauses. That there was never any lobbyist money from the RIAA and the MPAA to the Clinton campaign and most of Congress to pass such a law?

          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.
          • by gustaffo (598224) on Friday April 13, 2007 @05:53PM (#18725229)
            Blame the Clinton and Gore all you want, but don't forget that the DMCA was passed by a republican controlled house and senate. To me, the RNC is EQUALLY as responsible as Clinton and Gore for this - they had the power to prevent such legislation from ever making it to Clinton's office to sign. What has Bush done to undo this injustice, anyways? How about Orin Hatch?
  • by Jeian (409916) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:26PM (#18720817)
    ... at the mention of the term "blogosphere".
    • by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:35PM (#18720985) Journal
      I agree. "Blogosphere" is one of those awful dot-bomb era buzzwords, bandied about by marketdroids and the press to make them look cool and informed about the Internet. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of times someone mentions "the blogosphere" and their understanding of how the internet actually works.
    • by AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807) on Friday April 13, 2007 @04:21PM (#18723891)
      FUCK. THE. BLOGOSPHERE.
      There. I said it.
      It had to be said.

      What a self important bunch of wankers. Nothing about the concept of a blog is derserving of its own ism or sphere. Its just a website. Ever hear about what's happening in the Shoppingsiteosphere? Or the OnlineNewsosphere?
      No.
      You know why? because those particular areas of the Internets are created and staffed by professionals, who dont need to go around inventing self-aggrandizing titles for themselves.
      The ability so sign up for a Blogger account and blabber on about whatever the fuck you want in no way designates you as worthy of buzzword-creation rights. Fuck off and give the rest of us a break. Isnt there a coffee shop you should be posing at with your MacBook Pro or something? I think there is.

      And before all you /.'ers who link to your blog in you sig mod me down, which you're going to do, clearly and deservedly. Think about it a second. You want people to read your stuff, right? thats all well and good, but is your own specialness worth elevating some inane documenting of some asshat's daily lives to the same level as decent writing, literature, or real journalism? I certainly the fuck dont think so.

      So there's my .02
      Now feel free to continue modding me down as flamebait or troll because i cussed at you, and because you're *really* that special.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:27PM (#18720819)
    Birds of a feather...
    • by pallmall1 (882819) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:49PM (#18721237)

      Birds of a feather...
      No doubt. And all we ever hear from the democrats is "Bush is syping ... Bush is eavesdropping .. Bush is monitoring financial transactions ..," ad nauseum. And now, when the democrats sell out to the RIAA -- who want the legal right to impersonate people to obtain personal information in order to extort money, the RIAA that spies on people and whose members condone the use of rootkits to bug personal computers, the RIAA that wants to control all means of distributing any audio content in any form -- what will we hear from the two-faced hypocrites that claim to be the defenders of free speech and personal privacy?

      Not a fucking thing.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13, 2007 @02:08PM (#18721599)
        Amen, friend. Anyone with a bit of patriotism and American sprit left in them should VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
        • by ultranova (717540) on Friday April 13, 2007 @04:39PM (#18724217)

          Anyone with a bit of patriotism and American sprit left in them should VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

          Why ? Isn't their agenda removing the remaining limitations from total contractual freedom, allowing Corporate America to use its vastly superior resources to force even more onerous demands on the people who have to deal with it ?

          Libertarians seem to think that removing state power makes people free. It does not, it simply creates a power vacuum for someone else to fill. The large corporations seem most likely, already practically controlling most countries, but even if they fail to seize power someone else won't; no matter what, you will always have an overlord, and in the end, despite their numerous flaws the current semi-democratical Western states are amongst the most benevolent overlords in human history.

          All of this, of course, assumes that the libertarians will actually keep their word if elected, which would require them to be resistant to the temptation of power. Given history of politics, that seems a rather generous assumption.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Grishnakh (216268)
            We need a new party called the Centrist Party. All the choices we have are extremists.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by martyros (588782)

              OK, so is this new party going to be pro-choice or pro-life? Try to be centrist on that one.

              The fact is that there are about 1000 political issues: manufacturing vs labor, social liberals vs social conservatives, fiscal liberals vs fiscal conservatives, business vs environmentalism, pro-choice vs pro-life. Some people care about some things, some about other things. But the way our system is set up guarantees that all of the millions of different possible viewpoints have to be amalgamated into exactly

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:51PM (#18721279)
      Too bad the truth gets modded down. Senator Fritz Hollings, aka Senator Disney, is a Democrat.

      The DMCA was signed into law by Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

      There's a tax on blank CD media in Canada - passed by liberals.

      You'd think the self-professed "smart people"* who vote for "smart candidates"** would realize this. But they don't, because they're nothing more than sheep being led to slaughter.



      * who are actually just stupid liberals who have less intelligence than a mildly retarded squirrel
      ** dumbasses like John Kerry (C+!) and Al Gore (flunked out)
    • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris.beau@org> on Friday April 13, 2007 @02:01PM (#18721435)
      > Birds of a feather...

      The original poster got modded troll but there is truth in it. The Democrats need the net crazies like Kos and Moveon. But they equally need the big sacks of filthy cash that they can raise from Hollywierd and drug addled rock stars. They are betting that dealing in the RIAA will bring in enough cold hard cash to offset the negative effects from some disgruntled netheads. After all, what are they going to do, vote for a Republican? They might donate less, but who cares when you have huge sacks of money and when the race gets serious does anyone really believe Kos & Co. won't be fired up and frothing at the mouth to destroy "Evil Republicans!"?

      Same sort of cold calculation that makes both parties pay lots of lip service to core groups but dis em in their quest for the magical middle. Rove totally broke with that in '04 and by concentrating more on getting his base out pulled out a win, but 'everyone' realizes now that stategy is dangerous and probably won't work too many times.

      So now we all go back to courting the 'middle.' And by middle it is generally understood we mean the clueless nitwits who know nothing about politics, policy, issues or any of that stuff. No, they want telegenic, charismatic people who talk in platitudes. So we on the road to getting an Empty Suit vs. a TV star.
  • by cheebie (459397) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:30PM (#18720877)
    They used the words "shill", "left-wing" and "blogosphere". Then they mentioend the RIAA. That's as close as you can come to a Godwin violation without mentioning Historical German leaders.
    • by twd (167101) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:33PM (#18720939)
      Hitler would have said that, if he had had a blog.
      • by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Friday April 13, 2007 @02:16PM (#18721759) Journal
        And it's off
        01 Sept 39_____posted by: Adolf

        Well, our tanks rolled into Poland today, and let me tell you, it went even better than I thought it would. Got a bunch of military stuff to handle tonight, so I can't post much for a few days, but it let me just say, I expect a lot more Vaterland and a lot less Juden, if you know what I mean ;-)

        Permalink Comments(20)

        Trackbacks(1)

        Perhaps we should have given him Luxembourg too... posted at Peace with Honor
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        He did. It was called "Mein Kampf" and it was published on this stuff called paper. Although after the first really big post, he never updated it again. I hear he had some busy times afterward so I guess it's understandable.
    • by dreddnott (555950)
      Yeah, I thought I was reading the Daily Kos or an RMS/FSF article when I loaded Slashdot and this was on top.

      At least "left-wing" and "blogosphere" are in a quote from someone else...but the editor still chose to use those words.

      Oh well, it wasn't exactly going to make me happy no matter how it was phrased, so maybe it's better this way!
  • Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by C_Kode (102755) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:31PM (#18720889) Journal
    Can you say, "I'M DUMB AS A STUMP" (Yes; in all caps)

    I'm a political party needing the general population to vote for me, but I'm going to have the most hated company by the general population represent my party by letting them running the show.

    Lets just tattoo a giant "L" on their forehead...
    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lord_mike (567148) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:44PM (#18721147)
      Well, the reality is that there are four branches of government... The Legislative, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Entertainment Industry. For all the complaining and hand-wringing about Hollywood, the Republicans have consistently rolled out the red carpet for their big corporate entertainment friends, and the Democrats are going to be no better. In fact, I'm sad to say, that the Democrats, in their zeal to "protect" artists probably will be worse in this regard. Although the entertainment industry rules both parties with an iron fist, people who work in the industry themselves tend to have more liberal sentimentalities, so they would be more likely to work for the DNC than the RNC as a personal preference. Both parties are equally awful in regards to entertainment and consumer rights.

      Although I would hope that there would be more democrats than republicans who would support consumer rights over corporate profits, I don't expect to see any progressive entertainment legislation anytime soon, if ever. There is just too much influence in our fourth branch of government to enact any meaningful change. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

      I hope I'm wrong... perhaps the people-powered, grassroots politics that is beginning to influence politics may eventually bear some fruit in that regard, but I am not getting my hopes up.

      Thanks,

      Mike
      • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArcherB (796902) * on Friday April 13, 2007 @02:40PM (#18722207) Journal
        Although I would hope that there would be more democrats than republicans who would support consumer rights over corporate profits, I don't expect to see any progressive entertainment legislation anytime soon, if ever. There is just too much influence in our fourth branch of government to enact any meaningful change. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

        Am I the only one that notices when an anti-republican or anti-Bush article is posted, most of the replies focus on how evil Republicans/Bush/Rove are, but when an anti-democrat article is linked, the closest thing to criticism is "both parties suck!"

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mypalmike (454265)
          Am I the only one that notices when an anti-republican or anti-Bush article is posted, most of the replies focus on how evil Republicans/Bush/Rove are, but when an anti-democrat article is linked, the closest thing to criticism is "both parties suck!"

          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.
  • Unsurprising; both parties are in the pockets of corporate interests, anyway. I hope there is a backlash over this.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...about rampant trading of dem speeches on p2p networks and the potential for remixes and mash-ups without compensation to the original artists like Lincoln and Roosevelt.

    They plan on flooding p2p networks with podcasts that are just bogus loops during the convention.
    • Seriously, it's not that hard - Lincoln was a Republican.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dreddnott (555950)
        Yes - that's why scientists have been able to extract limitless energy from his sepulchral rotation since Richard Nixon became president.
  • Shill? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Profane MuthaFucka (574406) * <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:32PM (#18720913) Homepage Journal
    I do not think that word means what the author of that blurb thinks it means.

    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.

    • Re:Shill? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Swift Kick (240510) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:47PM (#18721223)
      What a delightfully interesting comment.

      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.
      • Not quite the same (Score:3, Informative)

        by PCM2 (4486)

        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."

        Ummm, it's a little different. The director of communications for the RIAA is the chief marketroid, nothing more. If she wielded real power I'd imagine her title would at least be vice president. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, was the freakin' CEO of Halliburton. He was the proverbial

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jez9999 (618189)
          So fecking what? 'Chief marketroid' still means they actively supported the RIAA's evil campaign of suing the public for every penny they could get, just to maximize corporate fatcat middleman profits.
  • not to late (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:32PM (#18720917) Homepage
    to vote libertarian.

    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:not to late (Score:4, Insightful)

      by C_Kode (102755) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:33PM (#18720951) Journal
      Thats the way to get people to listen to your ideas and get them to vote with you. Call them sheep...
    • too bad 90% of americans are baying sheep that are to cowardly to vote for a 3rd party.

      Nothing says "vote for us" like insulting 90% of the voting population!
      • by Lumpy (12016)
        to hell with "insulting" most of the voting public goes foaming at the mouth the second any Libertarian starts into his "legalize all drugs" rants. They actually have far better platforms to stand on that will get the attention of voters but they ALWAYS use the "free the pot! we must legalize POT!" stance first and that instantly turns off almost all of the voting public.

        In reality, simply get the low income and minorities to actually vote, that will overwhelm the fixing of the elections taht is going o
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Aladrin (926209)
        Ah, but here's the tricky part: None of that 90% THINKS it's part of the 90%, and will agree that 90% of the population are sheep. So while in actually there's an insult, nobody will admit that the insult applies to them.

        No harm done ;)
    • Wait... What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chmcginn (201645) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:38PM (#18721033) Journal

      you know the Lib party is pretty sound once you get past the "smoke pot" platform.

      Wait, so you're advocating the libertarian party... and you don't even believe people have the right to use whatever recreational drugs they want?

      It just seems like if you're going to be pro-personal freedom, the War on Drugs would be the first thing you'd want to get rid of, not the last.

      • Re:Wait... What? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Deagol (323173) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:55PM (#18721329) Homepage

        Wait, so you're advocating the libertarian party... and you don't even believe people have the right to use whatever recreational drugs they want? It just seems like if you're going to be pro-personal freedom, the War on Drugs would be the first thing you'd want to get rid of, not the last.

        Yes, but the poster's point was that a pro-drug stance shouldn't be the first thing to tout while on the stump. There are many more "pro-personal freedom" stances that are far more palatable to liberals and conservatives alike than "free the weed, dude".

        • ok, but (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tacokill (531275)
          That may be true about the other personal freedoms...

          But, there are few issues where "the evidence" is so compelling. I would wager that most people, when they answer honestly, realize weed is no "worse" than alcohol. But yet, the subject is never seriously debated and the same ol' War continues on. Do you realize we spend almost $40bil/yr fighting the drug war? That's a lot of people's paycheck.

          The reason its such a hot-button issue is because the War on Drugs has probably had the largest impa
    • Re:not to late (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Profane MuthaFucka (574406) * <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:38PM (#18721045) Homepage Journal
      Read my journal. The reason why Libertarians are not more popular is that the don't effectively frame their message. They speak only in analytical terms and fail to differentiate their own moral values. They do have them, they just fail to speak in terms of them. Instead, the Republicans, who are masters of the art of framing, usurp the Libertarian watchwords for their own purposes which are contrary to libertarian morality. Thus, many Libertarians vote for Republicans against their own interests, and they don't realize it.

      Example: calling people cowards is a conservative frame. Call them slaves instead - that's a libertarian frame. If you want a liberal frame, call them selfish bullies.

    • Party Politics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rolfwind (528248) on Friday April 13, 2007 @02:22PM (#18721921)
      I am not against voting Libertarian.... but when people going to stop and think who they are voting for? Vote independently of party and look at the person.

      Small political parties are only devoid of corruption because they have no power yet. The conservatives swept into power in 1994 with the promise of reform -- look what happened. I guarantee the same corruption and shit will happen once the democrats are in power because this cycle is endless. Both sides are the same and we are on a giant merry-go-round with the same shit every time.

      I think one of the best politicians recently was Jesse Ventura, and he ran as an Independent. Kept his word on many things and stepped out after 2 terms. Not a career politician by any means.

      Contrast this with the average career politician willing to say anything publicly to get elected while toeing the party line while in office. Beholden to so many interests, its no wonder most suck.

      If people ever started electing people without even looking at party affiliation, there would be no need for political parties. And a lot better job would get done. I would rather be for election reform if that meant that voting booths could just have the name of the person on the ticket, without party listed (do they list their every stance on issues in the booth too, I don't think so - this is a product of the 2 party system helping each other out - like they rig every other part of the electoral process). Then maybe people would be forced to look at who they are voting for rather than check it off all one party or another. Maybe then we'd getter better choices than between a douche and a turd.
  • by Slashdot Parent (995749) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:32PM (#18720923)
    Just ask Howard Dean how much influence the "left-wing blogosphere" wields in terms of getting their darling elected.
  • While she might have public sector skills the Democrats could certainly gain from having on their side, given her organization's (and no doubt her own) agenda, I would be very concerned about the back-channel influence she is going to have on the DNC, the candidates, and their supporters from the executvie and legislative branches. They will be 'rubbing shoulders
    a lot in the preparation and at the event and one would have to be naive to think she won't be lobbying for the RIAA.

    The Democrats rightly
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      Why don't they pick someone from a non-profit?

            Acording to the RIAA they ARE a non profit, what with all the money they're losing from piracy and all..
  • Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sunburnt (890890) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:35PM (#18720967)

    "This represents a potential shear with the left-wing blogosphere."
    "Shear?" How about "point that will be grumbled about for an entire day, then swiftly forgotten unless this shill commits some egregious fuckup." Given the ready availability of news for the left blogosphere to discuss, this'll hardly register, epsecially since people generally assume that political conventions are as full of shit as PR flacks. It's not like the Democrats did something as contemptuous as, say, appointing a former oil lobbyist [wikipedia.org] to be Secretary of the Interior.
  • Thats one less (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JustNiz (692889) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:36PM (#18720989)
    As the democrats are clearly in bed with the RIAA they're not getting my vote any more.
  • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:36PM (#18720991) Journal
    First off: a person who does communications for group 1 is probably going to do a reasonable job of doing communications for group 2. If you're hiring based on merit, how much does it matter if the person is one of satan's catchers?

    Secondly: the RIAA is everyone in power's best friend. Republicans love the big companies, Democrats love the film and rock stars, and both parties just absolutely adore lobbyists. They're like groupies only they give money.
  • Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cliveholloway (132299) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:37PM (#18721009) Homepage Journal
    money talks.

    "I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"

    - Bill Hicks
  • Follow the money (Score:3, Informative)

    by rlp (11898) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:43PM (#18721117)
    It'll make the trial lawyer and Hollywood/Music Industry contingents of the Democrats very happy. And those groups may be small, but they represent a lot of campaign donation dollars.
  • by grumpygrodyguy (603716) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:45PM (#18721157)
    Democrats need to be very very careful with DRM and associating with the **AAs. The last 7 years have made me hate the Republican party enough to never vote Red again in my life...and I used to be a Republican (in college when I was clueless about the real world, and didn't have the ability to forsee how the republican party has annihilated the middle class over the last 7 years).

    Bottom line, if the Dems go hard with DRM I will go with the independents and libertarians...regardless of whether this gives the Republicans an edge...I will not support a DRM friendly party that puts the rights of corporations over individual human rights. For Christ's sake Democrats are suppost the represent us...the people...corporate interests should always come second to any true Democrat in office.
  • by Un pobre guey (593801) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:46PM (#18721185) Homepage
    Politics is politics, dear friends. Partisanship and political discourse are theater whose purpose is to obtain votes. Either of the two parties will say and do anything, and I do mean anything to put their people in power. Ideology, "positions," speeches, platforms, and the like should not be construed as promises or guarantees of future behavior. They are meant for one and only one thing: to obtain votes.

    Also, do not believe that we, the voters are their constituents in the sense that they are beholden to our interests. This is not the case. They are beholden to those who can pressure them by providing or withholding money, usually (but not always) through lobbyists. If you are not represented in such a way to your government representatives, then you are not in any practical sense one of their constituents. Your vote was the single act in which you are able to influence the process. In principle, you can write to them once they are in office and attempt to sway them, but unless you are onboard with the money-providing players, or unless you are part of a massive broad-based campaign, you will be ignored and will receive a canned response.

    I claim that the above is neither an opinion nor ideology, but an expression of practical facts. Please refute that claim.

  • Riiiiiight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by N8F8 (4562) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:46PM (#18721197)
    Wake up. The Democratic party want to regulate the hell out of everything just like the RIAA. Learn from history or repeat it. Time for a real 3rd party. No lawyers or career politicians allowed.
  • by b17bmbr (608864) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:47PM (#18721211)
    bnetween the two parties. unless it's the Iraq war (which many democrats voted for by the way), name one substantial difference between the two parties. they both favor unlimited immigration, destructive trade policies, won't push to expand more oil drilling and nuclear power, don't give a crap about the social security/medicare atom bombs, and in general are so beholden to large monied interests. the republicans screwed up the war on terror, the democrats won't even fight it. other than that, they are more concerned with consolidating political power.

    as for the media, et al., all those hollywood big wigs (like David Geffen), who love the RIAA. they are all HUGE democratic donors. connection? I guess not.

    vote libertarian!!
  • by Evil W1zard (832703) on Friday April 13, 2007 @01:57PM (#18721359) Journal
    Jenni Engebretsen has proposed that DNC shall now stand for DO NOT COPY... She also will be instituting a new convention which will be named the Democratic Reform Meeting (DRM) which will be held monthly at a Regional Information Assembly Area (RIAA). She will also be engaging in a heavy handed campaign to support Military Personnel Aid and Assistance (MPAA).
  • by algae (2196) on Friday April 13, 2007 @02:21PM (#18721909)

    A while back, I complained to my Senator, Diane Feinstein about how the Broadcast flag would cut into time-shifting and other fair use rights, and that it was basically corporate welfare to preserve a flagging industry in the face of a changing environment. Here's the response I got:

    Thank you for writing to me about the digital broadcast flag. I appreciate hearing from you.

    I feel strongly that we must prevent the theft of copyrighted works, and that includes digital television (DTV) programming. As we move forward in the digital age, it is increasingly easy for unauthorized copies of copyrighted works to be made and illegally distributed. Over-the-air digital content is the easiest to pirate.

    As we contemplate the use of new technologies to protect copyrighted works, we must pay careful attention to ensure that a balance is struck between competitive protections and individual consumer interests. It is important to allow for the continued fair use of copyrighted material, even while we seek to stop unauthorized reproductions from being illegally distributed outside the home and over the Internet.

    Again, thank you for writing. Please know that as the Senate considers legislation of the broadcast flag, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.

    Diane Feinstein is what I call a DINO - Democrat in Name Only. She's pro-drug war, pro big media, anti-consumer rights, and is a socially conservative fiscal liberal. Her and Joe Lieberman give progressives a bad name.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Khaed (544779)
      She's also the biggest gun control advocate in the Senate, so she's not really conservative, either.

      I think the word "bitch" applies, though.
  • fuck em all. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Friday April 13, 2007 @02:32PM (#18722079) Homepage
    When are you people going to wake up? We aren't republican or democrats, we are Americans. Instead, we split ourselves along an arbitrary party line that single handedly fucks up EVERYTHING.

    It is my strong belief that we need to abolish the two-party system as it stands. maybe if we stopped putting letters after people's names, the masses would listen to what they have to actually say, rather than what "side" they say they are on.

    Fuck that. Fuck all of you who vote republican OR democrat.

    What you have done to our country disgusts me.

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long

Working...